Advertisement

An Analysis of Epistemic Peerhood

  • Kirk LougheedEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics book series (SAPERE, volume 51)

Abstract

In the previous chapter I argued that there are significant differences between simple and complex cases of disagreement. In this chapter I analyze the strict notion of epistemic peerhood used throughout the epistemology of disagreement literature. Such notions typically involve the idea that agents are strict evidential and cognitive equals. I show that this notion rarely, if ever, obtains in cases of real-world disagreement. If this is true, then the sceptical threat to rational inquiry posed by strong conciliationism would evaporate. However, I conclude with a new account of epistemic peerhood that is broad enough to apply to many cases of real-world disagreement between inquirers, and yet not so permissive so as to lose the epistemic significance of disagreement.

Bibliography

  1. Anantharaman, Muralidharan. 2015. Defending the Uniqueness Thesis—A Reply to Luis Rosa. Logos and Episteme 6 (1): 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballantyne, Nathan. 2014. Counterfactual Philosophers. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 88 (2): 368–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ballantyne, Nathan. 2015. The Significance of Unpossessed Evidence. The Philosophical Quarterly 65 (260): 315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballantyne, Nathan, and E.J. Coffman. 2011. Uniqueness, Evidence and Rationality. Philosophers’ Imprint 11 (18): 1–13.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, Zach, and Han Li. 2016. Conciliationism and Merely Possible Disagreement. Synthese 193 (9): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benjamin, Sherman. 2014. Moral Disagreement and Epistemic Advantages: A Challenge to McGrath. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 8 (3): 1–18.Google Scholar
  7. Bergmann, Michael. 2009. Rational Disagreement after Full Disclosure. Episteme 6 (3): 336–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bundy, Alex. 2011. Defense of Epistemic Abstemiousness. Logos & Episteme 2 (2): 287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christensen, David. 2009. Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy. Philosophy Compass 4 (5): 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christensen, David. 2016. Conciliation, Uniqueness and Rational Toxicity. Nous 50 (3): 584–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conee, Earl. 2010. Rational Disagreement Defended. In Disagreement, ed. Richard Feldman and Ted A. Warfield, 69–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Langhe, Rogier. 2013. Peer Disagreement Under Multiple Epistemic Systems. Synthese 190 (13): 2547–2556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Douven, I. 2009. Uniqueness Revisited. American Philosophical Quarterly 46 (4): 347–361.Google Scholar
  14. Elga, Adam. 2007. Reflection and Disagreement. Noûs 41 (3): 478–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elga, Adam. 2010. How to Disagree About How to Disagree. In Disagreement, ed. Richard Feldman and Ted A. Warfield, 175–186. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elgin, Catherine. 2010. Persistent Disagreement. In Disagreement, ed. Richard Feldman and Ted A. Warfield, 53–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Enoch, David. 2007. Not Just a Truthometer: Taking Oneself Seriously (but not Too Seriously) in Cases of Peer Disagreement. Mind 119 (476): 953–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feldman, Richard. 2006. Epistemological Puzzles About Disagreement. In Epistemology Futures, ed. Stephen Hetherington, 216–236. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Frances, Bryan. 2010. The Reflective Epistemic Renegade. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LXXXI 2: 419–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gelfert, Axel. 2011. Who is an Epistemic Peer?. Logos & Episteme II (4): 507–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldberg, Sanford. 2013. Disagreement, Defeat, and Assertion. In The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, ed. David Christensen and Jennifer Lackey, 167–189. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldberg, Sanford. 2016. On the Epistemic Significance of Evidence you Should have Had. Episteme 13 (4): 449–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hirvela, Jaakko. 2017. Is It Safe to Disagree?. Ratio 30 (3): 305–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kappel, Klemens. 2005. The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement. In Oxford Studies in Epistemology, vol. 1, ed. John Hawthorne and Tamar Szabó Gendler, 167–196. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kappel, Klemens. 2012. The Problem of Disagreement. Discipline Filosofiche 22 (2): 7–25.Google Scholar
  26. King, Nathan L. 2012. Disagreement: What’s the Problem? or A Good Peer is Hard to Find. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LXXXV (2): 249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kornblith, Hilary. 2010. Belief in the Face of Controversy. In Disagreement, ed. Richard Feldman and Ted A. Warfield, 29–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kraft, James. 2007. Religious Disagreement, Externalism, and the Epistemology of Disagreement: Listening to Our Grandmothers. Religious Studies 43 (4): 417–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lackey, Jennifer. 2013. Disagreement and Belief Dependence: Why Numbers Matter. In The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, ed. David Christensen and Jennifer Lackey, 243–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lackey, Jennifer. 2014. Taking Religious Disagreement Seriously. In Religious Faith and Intellectual Virtue, ed. L.F. Callahan and T. O’Connor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lee, Matthew. 2012a. Conciliationism without Uniqueness. Grazer Philosophische Studien 88 (1): 161–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Licon, Jimmy Alfonso. 2013. On Merely Modal Epistemic Peers: Challenging the Equal Weight View. Philosophia 41 (3): 809–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lo Guercio, Nicolas. 2012. Philosophical Peer Disagreement. Logos & Episteme III (3): 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lo Guercio, Nicolas. 2013. Reply to Palmira. Logos & Episteme IV (3): 361–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lougheed, Kirk. (forthcoming). Catherine Elgin on peerhood and the epistemic benefits of disagreement. Synthese.Google Scholar
  36. Lynch, M.P. (2010). Epistemic Circularity and Epistemic Incommensurability. In Social Epistemology, ed. A. Haddock, A. Millar and D. Pritchard, 262–277. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lynch, M.P. 2012. In Praise of Reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Matheson, Jonathan. 2011. The Case for Rational Uniqueness. Logos and Episteme: An International Journal of Social Philosophy 6 (3): 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matheson, Jonathan. 2014. Disagreement: Idealized and Everyday. In The Ethics of Belief: Individual and Social, ed. Jonathan Matheson and Rico Vitz, 315–330. Oxford: Oxford University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee, Matthew. (2012a). The role of the Uniqueness Thesis in the Epistemology of Disagreement. In Proceedings of the 34th International Wittgenstein Symposium: Epistemology: Contexts, Values, Disagreement, ed. C. Jager and W. Loffler. Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar
  41. McGrath, Sarah. 2008. Moral Disagreement and Moral Expertise. In Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. 4, ed. Russ Shafer-Landau, 87–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. McGrath, Sarah. 2011. Reply to King. Journal of Philosophical Research 36: 235–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moffett, M. 2007. Reasonable Disagreement and Rational Group Inquiry. Episteme 4 (3): 352–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oppy, Graham. 2010. Disagreement. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 68 (1–3): 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Palmira, Michele. 2013. On the Necessity of the Evidential Equality Condition for Epistemic Peerage. Logos & Episteme IV (1): 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pittard, John. 2017. Disagreement, Reliability, and Resilience. Synthese 194 (11): 4389–4409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Plantinga, Alvin. 2000. Warranted Christian Belief. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Priest, Maura. 2016. Inferior Disagreement. Acta Analytica 31 (3): 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schoenfield, Miriam. 2014. Permission to Believe: Why Permissivism is True and What it Tells us about Irrelevant Influences on Belief. Nous 48 (2): 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schoenfield, Miriam. 2015. A Dilemma for Calibrationism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research XCI (2): 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sherman, Ben. 2015. Questionable Peers and Spinelessness. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 45 (4): 425–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sosa, E. (2010). The Epistemology of Disagreement. In Social Epistemology, ed. Alan Haddock, Adrian Millar, and Duncan Pritchard, 278–297. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [First published in (2009). Episteme 6 (3): 269–279].Google Scholar
  53. Thune, Michael. 2010. Religious Belief and Epistemology of Disagreement. Philosophy Compass 5 (8): 712–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vahid, Hamid. (2014). Some Problems with Steadfast Strategies for Rational Disagreement. Symposion: Theoretical and Applied Inquiries in Philosophy and Social Sciences 1(1): 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vorobej, Mark. 2011. Distant Peers. Metaphilosophy 42 (5): 708–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wald, Benjamin. 2009. Dealing With Disagreement: Distinguishing Two Types of Epistemic Peers. Spontaneous Generations 3 (1): 113–122.Google Scholar
  57. Weatherson, Brian. 2013. Disagreements, Philosophical and Otherwise. In The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, ed. David Christensen and Jennifer Lackey, 54–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. White, Roger. 2005. Epistemic Permissiveness. Philosophical Perspectives 19 (1): 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Worsnip, Alex. 2014. Disagreement about Disagreement? What Disagreement about Disagreement?. Philosopher’s Imprint 14 (18): 1–20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Concordia University of EdmontonEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations