Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-t6st2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T16:13:32.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conciliatory Views of Disagreement and Higher-Order Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Jonathan Matheson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conciliatory views of disagreement maintain that discovering a particular type of disagreement requires that one make doxastic conciliation. In this paper I give a more formal characterization of such a view. After explaining and motivating this view as the correct view regarding the epistemic significance of disagreement, I proceed to defend it from several objections concerning higher-order evidence (evidence about the character of one's evidence) made by Thomas Kelly (2005).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , October 2009 , pp. 269 - 279
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Christensen, David. 2007. “Epistemology of Disagreement: the Good News.” The Philosophical Review 116: 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conee, Earl and Richard, Feldman. 2001. “Internalism Defended.” In Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology, pp. 53–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard. 2005. “Respecting the Evidence.” Philosophical Perspectives 19: 95–119.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard. 2007. “Reasonable Religious Disagreements.” In Antony, L. (ed.), Philosophers without Gods, pp. 194–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fumerton, Richard. 1995. Metaepistemology and Skepticism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Fumerton, Richard. 2005. “The Challenge of Refuting Skepticism.” In Steup, M. and Sosa, E. (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, pp. 85–97. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas. 2005. “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.” In Gendler, T. and Hawthorne, J. (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, vol. 1, pp. 167–96. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Thomas. Forthcoming. “Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence.” In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. (eds.), Disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, Jason and Jonathan, Matheson. Forthcoming. “Bergmann's Dilemma: Exit Strategies for Internalists.” Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
Sosa, Ernest. Forthcoming. “The Epistemology of Disagreement.” In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. (eds.), Disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
White, Roger. 2005. “Epistemic Permissiveness.” Philosophical Perspectives 19: 445–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar