Can Steadfast Peer Disagreement Be Rational?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

According to conciliatory views about peer disagreement, both peers must accord their disagreeing peer some weight, and move (to some extent) towards him. Non-conciliatory views allow one peer, the one who responded correctly to the evidence, to remain steadfast. In this paper, I consider the suggestion that it may be rational for both disagreeing peers to hold steadfastly to their opinion. To this end, I contend with arguments adduced against the permissiveness the supposition involves, and identify some ways in which different responses for different agents to the evidence might be reasonable.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)740-759
Number of pages20
JournalPhilosophical Quarterly
Volume63
Issue number253
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Oct 2013

Keywords

  • PEERS
  • EPISTEMICS
  • HOPE
  • REFERENDUM
  • PERMISSIVENESS
  • JUSTIFICATION (Ethics)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Can Steadfast Peer Disagreement Be Rational?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this