The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays

Disagreement is common: even informed, intelligent, and generally reasonable people often come to different conclusions when confronted with what seems to be the same evidence. Can the competing conclusions be reasonable? If not, what can we reasonably think about the situation? This volume examines the epistemology of disagreement. Philosophical questions about disagreement arise in various areas, notably politics, ethics, aesthetics, and the philosophy of religion: but this will be the first book focusing on the general epistemic issues arising from informed disagreement. Ten leading philosophers offer specially written essays which together will offer a starting-point for future work on this topic.

The epistemology of disagreement : new essays (Book, …

The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays Christensen David and Lackey Jennifer, Eds

Dymocks - Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays …

The Epistemology of Disagreement brings together essays from a dozen philosophers on the epistemic significance of disagreement; all but one of the essays are new. Questions discussed include: When (if ever) does the disagreement of others require a rational agent to revise her beliefs? Do ‘conciliatory’ accounts, on which agents are required to revise significantly, suffer from fatal problems of self-defeat, given the disagreement about disagreement? What is the significance of disagreement about philosophical topics in particular? How does the epistemology of disagreement relate to broader epistemic theorizing? Does the increased significance of multiple disagreeing agents depend on their being independent of one another?

Epistemology Of Disagreement New Essays - student …

The epistemology of disagreement is a fairly young though extremely fertile area of inquiry in philosophy. In recent years, a substantial amount of new work has been done on this topic, and the literature has developed in important ways. At the center of the debate is the question of what rationality requires one to do when faced with an epistemic peer with whom one disagrees. Two people are epistemic peers with respect to a particular question when they are roughly evidential and cognitive equals, that is, when they are (roughly) equally familiar with the evidence and arguments that bear on the question and are (roughly) equally competent, intelligent, and fair-minded in their assessment of it. Most discussions frame the issues in terms of those whom one takes to be an epistemic peer, rather than those who are in fact one’s epistemic peer (for ease of presentation, this distinction shall not be made explicit in what follows). This entry focuses on various answers that have been given to this question as well as related issues that emerge.

The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays - Livros …
The Epistemology of Disagreement brings together essays from a dozen philosophers on the epistemic significance of disagreement; all but one of the essays are new.

An Essay Concerning Human Understanding - Wikipedia

Widespread interest in the epistemology of disagreement is somewhat recent, so there are only two collections of essays on this topic. includes all new papers in this area that were originally presented at a conference on the epistemology of disagreement. contains new contributions by some of the leading figures working in this area. Several of the papers in this collection have already been highly influential in the debate. includes some of the most cutting-edge work in the epistemology of disagreement, both by key figures in the debate and by those who are contributing for the first time.

25/04/2013 · Buy Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays from Dymocks online BookStore. Find latest reader reviews and much more at Dymocks

Free Philosophy Essays and Papers - 123HelpMe

Christensen, David, and Jennifer Lackey, eds. The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. DOI:

Issues with Your Epistemology Of Disagreement New Essays, first amendment persuasive essay, what everybody is saying book review

These results are sorted by most relevant first (ranked search)

The Epistemology of Disagreement brings together essays from a dozen philosophers on the epistemic significance of disagreement; all but one of the essays are new. Questions discussed include: When (if ever) does the disagreement of others require a rational agent to revise her beliefs? Do ‘conciliatory’ accounts, on which agents are required to revise significantly, suffer from fatal problems of self-defeat, given the disagreement about disagreement? What is the significance of disagreement about philosophical topics in particular? How does the epistemology of disagreement relate to broader epistemic theorizing? Does the increased significance of multiple disagreeing agents depend on their being independent of one another?