Autor: Federico Matías Pailos, Pablo Di Paolo

Abstract:

Conciliatory views on disagreement claim that one should “split the difference” between the epistemic peers’ opinions. Nevertheless, when they apply to the disagreement on conciliatory positions themselves, they give incoherent instructions. A semi-conciliatory position is one that accepts that the peers’ opinions are part of the whole body of evidence relevant in these situations. If one adopts this kind of view, all cases that seems to favor conciliatory views can be explained, and without compromising with the anti–intuitive consequences conciliatory positions have. In particular, a semi-conciliatory view is not condemned to give incoherent instructions when applied to disagreement about it.

ISSN: 1414-4217

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2013v17n1p1

Texto Completo: https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2013v17n1p1/26260

Palavras-Chave: Disagreement,peer,evidence,incoherence,intuit