Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:06:02.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deep Disagreement, Hinge Commitments, and Intellectual Humility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2020

Drew Johnson Open the ORCID record for Drew Johnson [Opens in a new window]
Drew Johnson*
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut, CT, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: Drew.johnson@uconn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Why is it that some instances of disagreement appear to be so intractable? And what is the appropriate way to handle such disagreements, especially concerning matters about which there are important practical and political needs for us to come to a consensus? In this paper, I consider an explanation of the apparent intractability of deep disagreement offered by hinge epistemology. According to this explanation, at least some deep disagreements are rationally unresolvable because they concern ‘hinge’ commitments that are unresponsive to rational considerations. This explanation, if correct, seems to have troubling implications for how we should respond to deep disagreement. If my position on a topic is not responsive to rational considerations, then what choice have I but to dogmatically hold to that position, and simply dismiss the views of those with whom I disagree? I address this problem by identifying an attitude of intellectual humility that is appropriate to have towards one's hinge commitments, and suggest that this attitude provides the basis for a non-rational, constructive way to resolve deep disagreement.

Keywords

Hinge epistemologydeep disagreementintellectual humilityepistemic relativismepistemology of disagreement
Type
Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2022 , pp. 353 - 372
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

Ashton, N.A. (2019). ‘The Case for a Feminist Hinge Epistemology.’ Wittgenstein-Studien 10(1), 153–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audi, R. (2014). ‘Normative Disagreement as a Challenge to Moral Philosophy and Philosophical Theology.’ In Bergman, M. and Kain, P. (eds), Challenges to Moral and Religious Belief: Disagreement and Evolution, pp. 61–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669776.003.0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, J. and Pritchard, D. (2016). ‘Intellectual Humility, Knowledge-How, and Disagreement.’ In Mi, C., Slote, M. and Sosa, E. (eds), Moral and Intellectual Virtues in Western and Chinese Philosophy: The Turn Toward Virtue, pp. 49–63. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (2007). ‘Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News.’ Philosophical Review 116, 187–218.10.1215/00318108-2006-035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coliva, A. (2010). Moore and Wittgenstein: Scepticism, Certainty, and Common Sense. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230289697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coliva, A. (2015). Extended Rationality: A Hinge Epistemology. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137501899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coliva, A. (2016). ‘Which Hinge Epistemology?’ International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 6(2–3), 79–96.10.1163/22105700-00603002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elga, A. (2007). ‘Reflection and Disagreement.’ Noûs 41, 478–502.10.1111/j.1468-0068.2007.00656.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enoch, D. (2011). ‘Disagreement.’ In Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism, pp. 185–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199579969.003.0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. (2005). ‘Deep Disagreement, Rational Resolutions, and Critical Thinking.’ Informal Logic 25(1), 13–23.10.22329/il.v25i1.1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadamer, H. (1992). Truth and Method. New York, NY: Crossroads.Google Scholar
Halteman, M. and Halteman Zwart, M. (2016). ‘Philosophy as Therapy for Recovering (Unrestricted) Omnivores.’ In Chignell, A., Cuneo, T. and Halteman, M. (eds), Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments about the Ethics of Eating, pp. 129–48. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hazlett, A. (2012). ‘Higher-order Epistemic Attitudes and Intellectual Humility.’ Episteme 9(3), 205–23.10.1017/epi.2012.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kappel, K. (2012). ‘The Problem of Deep Disagreement.’ Discipline Filosophiche 22(2), 7–25.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. (2010). ‘Epistemic Circularity and Epistemic Incommensurability.’ In Haddock, A., Millar, A. and Pritchard, D. (eds), Social Epistemology, pp. 262–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577477.003.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. (2012). In Praise of Reason: Why Rationality Matters for Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7602.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. (2016). ‘After the Spade Turns: Disagreement, First Principles, and Epistemic Contractarianism.’ International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 6, 248–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. (2018). ‘Arrogance, Truth, and Public Discourse.’ Episteme 15(3), 283–96.10.1017/epi.2018.23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyal-Sharrock, D. (2004). Understanding Wittgenstein's on Certainty. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyal-Sharrock, D. (2016). ‘The Animal in Epistemology.’ International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 6(2–3), 97–119.10.1163/22105700-00603003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2009). ‘Defusing Epistemic Relativism.’ Synthese 166, 397–412.10.1007/s11229-007-9278-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2012). ‘Wittgenstein and the Groundlessness of Our Believing.’ Synthese 189(2), 255–72.10.1007/s11229-011-0057-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2016). Epistemic Angst: Radical Skepticism and the Groundlessness of our Believing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400873913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2017). ‘Disagreements, of Beliefs and Otherwise.’ In Johnson, C.R. (ed.), Voicing Dissent: The Ethics and Epistemology of Making Disagreement Public, pp. 22–39. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2018). ‘Wittgensteinian Hinge Epistemology and Deep Disagreement.’ Topoi 1–9. doi: 10.1007/s11245-018-9612-y.Google Scholar
Ranalli, C. (2018a). ‘What is Deep Disagreement?’ Topoi 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s11245-018-9600-2.Google Scholar
Ranalli, C. (2018b). ‘Deep Disagreement and Hinge Epistemology.’ Synthese 1–33. doi: 10.1007/s11229-018-01956-2.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (2005). Political Liberalism (expanded edition). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Saslow, E. (2016). ‘The White Flight of Derek Black.’ The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-derek-black/2016/10/15/ed5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3baf1bc9c30d.Google Scholar
Shafer-Landau, R. (2003). ‘Rationality and Disagreement.’ In Moral Realism: A Defence, pp. 215–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0199259755.003.0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shields, M. (2018). ‘On the Pragmatics of Deep Disagreement.’ Topoi 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s11245-018-9602-0.Google Scholar
Siegel, H. (2019). ‘Hinges, Disagreements, and Arguments: (Rationally) Believing Hinge Propositions, and Arguing Across Deep Disagreements.’ Topoi 1–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-018-9625-6.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. (1971). ‘A Defense of Abortion.’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 1(1), 47–66.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, R. (2014). ‘Moral Disagreement Among Philosophers.’ In Bergman, M. and Kain, P. (eds), Challenges to Moral and Religious Belief: Disagreement and Evolution, pp. 23–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitcomb, D., Battaly, H., Baehr, J. and Howard-Snyder, D. (2017). ‘Intellectual Humility: Owning our Limitations.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 94(3), 509–39.10.1111/phpr.12228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. (1991). Unnatural Doubts: Epistemological Realism and the Basis of Scepticism. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On Certainty. Edited by Anscombe, G.E.M. and von Wright, G.H.; translated by Paul, D. and Anscombe, G.E.M.. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Wright, C. (1986). ‘Facts and Certainty.’ Proceedings of the British Academy 71, 429–72.Google Scholar
Wright, C. (1992). Truth and Objectivity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674045385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, C. (2004). ‘Warrant for Nothing (and Foundations for Free)?’ Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 78(1), 167–212.10.1111/j.0309-7013.2004.00121.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar