Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T02:20:34.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unconfirmed peers and spinelessness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Ben Sherman
Ben Sherman*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
*
*Email: benrs@bu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Equal Weight View holds that, when we discover we disagree with an epistemic peer, we should give our peer’s judgment as much weight as our own. But how should we respond when we cannot tell whether those who disagree with us are our epistemic peers? I argue for a position I will call the Earn-a-Spine View. According to this view, parties to a disagreement can remain confident, at least in some situations, by finding justifiable reasons to think their opponents are less credible than themselves, even if those reasons are justifiable only because they lack information about their opponents.

Keywords

Epistemologydisagreementepistemic peerEqual Weight Viewspinelessness
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , August 2015 , pp. 425 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Shortly prior to this article’s acceptance, the author accepted a position at Brandeis University.

References

Bäck, Emma, Esaiasson, Peter, Gilljam, Mikael, and Lindholm, Torun. 2010. “Biased Attributions Regarding the Origins of Preferences in a Group Decision Situation.”; European Journal of Social Psychology 40: 270–281. doi:10.1002/ejsp.618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballantyne, Nathan. 2015. “Debunking Biased Thinkers (Including Ourselves).”; Journal of the American Philosophical Association 1 (1): 141–162. doi:10.1017/apa.2014.17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, David. 2007. “Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News.”; Philosophical Review 116 (2): 187–217. doi:10.1215/00318108-2006-035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, David. 2009. “Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy.”; Philosophy Compass 4 (5): 756–767. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00237.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, David. 2011. “Disagreement, Question-begging and Epistemic Self-criticism.”; Philosophers’ Imprint 11 (6): 1–22. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0011.006.Google Scholar
Conee, Earl. 2009. “Peerage.”; Episteme 6 (03): 313–323. doi:10.3366/E1742360009000732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elga, Adam. 2007. “Reflection and Disagreement.”; NOÛS 41 (3): 478–502. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0068.2007.00656.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgin, Catherine Z. 1996. Considered Judgment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Elgin, Catherine Z. 2010. “Persistent Disagreement.”; In Disagreement, edited by Feldman, Richard and Warfield, Ted, 53–68. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226078.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Richard. 2006. “Epistemological Puzzles about Disagreement.”; In Epistemology Futures, edited by Hetherington, Stephen, 216–237. New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard. 2007. “Reasonable Religious Disagreements.”; In Philosophers without Gods: Meditation on Atheism and the Secular Life, edited by Antony, Louise, 194–214. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foley, Richard. 2001. Intellectual Trust in Oneself and Others. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511498923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, Allan. 1990. Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gutting, Gary. 1982. Religious Belief and Religious Skepticism. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, James M. 2010. “A Defense of Imprecise Credences in Inference and Decision Making.”; Philosophical Perspectives 24: 281–323. doi:10.1111/j.1520-8583.2010.00194.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahnemann, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas. 2005. “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.”; In Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Vol. 1, edited by Gendler, Tamar Szabo and Hawthorne, John, 167–196. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kenworthy, Jared B. 2003. “Explaining the Belief in God for Self, in-group, and out-group Targets.”; Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42 (1): 137–146. doi:10.1111/1468-5906.00167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenworthy, Jared B., and Miller, Norman. 2002. “Attributional Biases about the Origins of Attitudes: Externality, Emotionality and Rationality.”; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (5): 693–707. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, Nathan. 2012. “Disagreement: What’s the Problem? Or a Good Peer is Hard to Find.”; Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85 (2): 249–272. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00441.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, Jennifer. 2010. “A Justificationist View of Disagreement’s Epistemic Significance.”; In Social Epistemology, edited by Haddock, Adrian, Millar, Alan, and Pritchard, Duncan, 298–325. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OBrien, Léan V., and McGarty, Craig. 2009. “Political Disagreement in Intergroup Terms: Contextual Variation and the Influence of Power.”; British Journal of Social Psychology 48: 77–98. doi:10.1348/014466608X299717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pronin, Emily. 2007. “Perception and Misperception of Bias in Human Judgment.”; Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (1): 37–43. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pronin, Emily, Lin, Daniel Y., and Ross, Lee. 2002. “The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self versus Others.”; Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28: 369–381. doi:10.1177/0146167202286008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Lee, and Nisbett, Richard E.. 1991. The Person and the Situation. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Vogel, Jonathan. 2000. “Reliabilism Leveled.”; The Journal of Philosophy 97 (11): 602–623. doi:10.2307/2678454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Roger. 2010. “Evidential Symmetry and Mushy Credence.”; In Oxford Studies in Epistemology Vol. 3, edited by Gendler, Tamar Szabo and Hawthorne, John, 274–293. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar