Article
History & Philosophy Of Science
Duncan Pritchard
Summary: While conciliatory approaches to epistemic peer disagreement are widely accepted, inherent problems suggest that non-conciliatory alternatives may be stronger, particularly in resisting the impact of peer disagreement on epistemic justification.
Article
History & Philosophy Of Science
Yuval Avnur
Summary: The problem of skepticism is often seen as a paradox, with justification being biased towards the proposition that we are not massively deceived. Challenges include whether we are deceived on a large scale, and why we should use a specific concept.
Article
History & Philosophy Of Science
Fernando Broncano-Berrocal, Mona Simion
Summary: This paper suggests a methodological shift in the epistemology of disagreement, focusing on disagreement itself rather than idealized cases of peer disagreement. A normative framework is proposed to evaluate all cases of disagreement independently of their composition, leading to a norm where one should improve the epistemic properties of their beliefs or remain steadfast when faced with disagreement.
Article
Philosophy
Christopher A. Vogel
Summary: When a colleague disagrees with me, I should consider their opinion. The Equal Weight view suggests that in cases of peer disagreement, I should give equal weight to my colleague's opinion and decrease my certainty in the disputed claim. One critique of this view is that it tends to prioritize indirect evidence over direct evidence. However, by idealizing epistemic agents as deriving functions, we can address this issue.
DISPUTATIO-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY
(2022)
Article
History & Philosophy Of Science
James Cartlidge
Summary: This paper examines the philosophy of Jean-Francois Lyotard and its relevance to the analytic philosophy of deep disagreement. It argues that Lyotard challenges the prevailing epistemic paradigm in the academic literature on deep disagreement by locating the cause of deep disagreement in factors beyond the realm of knowledge, such as the incompleteness and openness of language and the incommensurable differences in our politically pluralistic world. The paper suggests conceptualizing deep disagreements as political problems rather than epistemological ones, and finding new ways of dealing with disagreements that do not impose a predetermined solution but rather increase our collective conceptual resources.
Article
History & Philosophy Of Science
Tim Loughrist
Summary: Process reliabilism posits that a belief is justified only if it is formed through a reliable process. The argument that defeaters present a challenge to this view is refuted by showing that solutions to the generality problem can address cases involving defeaters as well. Therefore, there is no unique problem of defeaters for simple process reliabilism.
Article
History & Philosophy Of Science
Oscar A. Piedrahita
Summary: The author argues that traditional formulations of hinge epistemology can lead to epistemic relativism, and proposes a new minimally epistemic conception of hinges that avoids relativism and rationally resolves hinge disagreements. This proposed view suggests that putative cases of epistemic incommensurability are rationally resolvable by revising hinges in accordance with the overarching commitment to avoid systematic deception in epistemic practices.
Article
History & Philosophy Of Science
Annalisa Coliva, Louis Doulas
Summary: Philosophers often have disagreements, which leads to the question of whether we should embrace philosophical skepticism or not. This paper proposes an intermediate position that can recover some philosophical knowledge while being compatible with philosophical skepticism.
Article
History & Philosophy Of Science
Kirk Lougheed
Summary: Conciliationism argues that individuals should revise their beliefs when they encounter disagreement from epistemic peers. However, in real-life disagreements, strict cognitive and evidential equality between peers is often not achieved. Elgin's account suggests that scientists can disagree due to differences in reasoning styles despite having similar reasoning abilities. This challenges the traditional notion of epistemic peerhood and raises questions about the benefits of remaining steadfast in the face of disagreement.
Article
History & Philosophy Of Science
Anna-Sara Malmgren
Summary: This paper examines the common concept of inferential justification, highlighting its complexities and underspecifications when applied to cases. The goal is not to answer questions, but to prompt a critical reassessment of the standard conception.
Article
History & Philosophy Of Science
Lisa Miracchi
Summary: Western analytic epistemology is experiencing a major upheaval as the importance of social justice concerns is increasingly recognized. While some epistemologists claim that their project should solely focus on truth and facts, others are shifting their focus towards improving epistemic concepts to contribute to social justice. The author argues that social justice concerns and objectivist projects are not in conflict and should be integrated for a more comprehensive understanding.
Article
History & Philosophy Of Science
Marko-Luka Zubcic
Summary: This paper develops an epistemological argument for freedom from poverty based on Gerald Gaus' New Diversity Theory. The author analyzes Gaus' central arguments in the theory, focusing on the key epistemological distinction of protecting diverse opinions and researchers. The paper argues that freedom from poverty should be considered an institutional device conducive to diversity, in line with Gaus' defense of minimal redistribution.
Article
History & Philosophy Of Science
Kirk Lougheed
Summary: The author defends non-conciliationism in research contexts and explores its implications for non-inquiry beliefs, particularly in handling disagreements over worldviews. He argues that worldview disagreements are easier to work with compared to isolated propositions disagreements.
SOCIAL EPISTEMOLOGY
(2021)
Article
History & Philosophy Of Science
Matthew Carlson
Summary: This paper explores and rejects a challenge to the anti-exceptionalist view of logic. By disambiguating the notion of "basic", the author argues that the best reason for the existence of basic logical principles actually supports anti-exceptionalism.
Article
History & Philosophy Of Science
Franklin Jacoby
Summary: This paper evaluates two arguments against the robust role of epistemic standards in science and argues that even if we accept them, epistemic standards still have a strong normative role and disregarding them risks irrationality. It suggests that standards should be seen as a guide rather than a strict requirement for scientists to choose between beliefs.
Article
Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary
M. A. Weber
VESTNIK TOMSKOGO GOSUDARSTVENNOGO UNIVERSITETA-FILOSOFIYA-SOTSIOLOGIYA-POLITOLOGIYA-TOMSK STATE UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY SOCIOLOGY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE
(2019)
Article
Philosophy
Marc Andree Weber
Article
Philosophy
Marc Andree Weber
ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHISCHE FORSCHUNG
(2017)
Proceedings Paper
Engineering, Electrical & Electronic
Naomi E. Alexander, Byron Alderman, Fernando Allona, Peter Frijlink, Ramon Gonzalo, Manfred Haegelen, Asier Ibanez, Viktor Krozer, Marian L. Langford, Ernesto Limiti, Duncan Platt, Marek Schikora, Hui Wang, Marc Andree Weber
PASSIVE AND ACTIVE MILLIMETER-WAVE IMAGING XVII
(2014)