What should you do when two epistemic peers have the same evidence and disagree?
The debate about disagreement is a controversial one. Disagreements form when a person believes in something that another person does not believe to be true. This mainly occurs because when people adopt different attitudes. Philosophers, including Feldman, Kelly and Christensen, have tried to determine the best approach for dealing with disagreements. This is an important issue because it causes people to question themselves and ask: how much should one’s confidence in his beliefs be affected when one learns that others, who seem as well-qualified as you are, hold beliefs contrary to yours?
It is important to note that in this article, the disagreements I will be discussing will only focus on “epistemic peers.” Epistemic peers are people who share the same knowledge, intellectual capacity and rationality. For example, Jason and Adam, two seniors in high school who grew up in the same town, took similar classes and received similar grades, would be considered epistemic peers. On the other hand, Jason and Albert Einstein would not be considered epistemic peers. In this case, Einstein would most likely be epistemically superior to the student.
Scenario
Imagine you and your …show more content…
Kelly argues that there are usually reasons as to why individuals form the beliefs that they do, and therefore each person has a good reason for holding onto his view. One of the main concerns that he confronts is whether or not it is reasonable for a person to maintain that their own belief is the right one. Many people would believe that is natural for epistemic peers to decrease the confidence in their views if a peer is persistently disagreeing with them. However, Kelly affirms that disagreement alone does not provide a good enough reason for one to change his original view; the following explains