Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:49:51.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Personal Information as Symmetry Breaker in Disagreements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2021

Diego E. Machuca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When involved in a disagreement, a common reaction is to tell oneself that, given that the information about one's own epistemic standing is clearly superior in both amount and quality to the information about one's opponent's epistemic standing, one is justified in one's confidence that one's view is correct. In line with this natural reaction to disagreement, some contributors to the debate on its epistemic significance have claimed that one can stick to one's guns by relying in part on information about one's first-order evidence and the functioning of one's cognitive capacities. In this article, I argue that such a manoeuvre to settle controversies encounters the problem that both disputants can make use of it, the problem that one may be wrong about one's current conscious experience, and the problem that it is a live possibility that many of one's beliefs are the product of epistemically distorting factors. I also argue that, even if we grant that personal information is reliable, when it comes to real-life rather than idealized disagreements, the extent of the unpossessed information about one's opponent's epistemic standing provides a reason for doubting that personal information can function as a symmetry breaker.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy , Volume 97 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 51 - 70
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Royal Institute of Philosophy.

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

Alston, William, ‘Varieties of Privileged Access’, in his Epistemic Justification: Essays in the Theory of Knowledge (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), 249–85.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M., ‘Is Introspective Knowledge Incorrigible?’, The Philosophical Review, 72 (1963), 417–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballantyne, Nathan, ‘The Significance of Unpossessed Evidence’, The Philosophical Quarterly, 65 (2015), 315–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, David, ‘Disagreement, Question-Begging and Epistemic Self-Criticism’, Philosophers’ Imprint, 11 (2011), 1–22.Google Scholar
Enoch, David, ‘Not Just a Truthometer: Taking Oneself Seriously (but Not Too Seriously) in Cases of Peer Disagreement’, Mind, 119 (2010), 953–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, Richard, Intellectual Trust in Oneself and Others (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Lauren, Garry, Maryanne, and Loftus, Elizabeth, ‘False Memories: A Kind of Confabulation in Non-Clinical Patients’, in Hirstein, W. (ed.), Confabulation: Views from Neuroscience, Psychiatry, Psychology, and Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 33–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, Jonathan, ‘The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment’, Psychological Review, 108 (2001), 814–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haidt, Jonathan, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York: Vintage Books, 2013).Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Thinking Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011).Google Scholar
King, Nathan, ‘Disagreement: What's the Problem? or A Good Peer is Hard to Find’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85 (2012), 249–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Nathan, ‘Disagreement: The Skeptical Arguments from Peerhood and Symmetry’, in Machuca, D. (ed.), Disagreement and Skepticism (New York: Routledge, 2013), 193–217.Google Scholar
Lackey, Jennifer, ‘A Justificationist View of Disagreement's Epistemic Significance’, in Haddock, A., Millar, A., and Pritchard, D. (eds.), Social Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 298–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loftus, Elizabeth, Eyewitness Memory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979).Google Scholar
Loftus, Elizabeth, ‘The Reality of Repressed Memories’, American Psychologist, 48 (1993), 518–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loftus, Elizabeth, ‘Memory for a Past That Never Was’, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6 (1997), 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loftus, Elizabeth and Pickrell, Jacqueline, ‘The Formation of False Memories’, Psychiatric Annals, 25 (1995), 720–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matheson, Jonathan, The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, Richard and Wilson, Timothy, ‘Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes’, Psychological Review, 84 (1977), 231–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, David, ‘Unfelt Pains’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 12 (1975), 289–98.Google Scholar
Pasnau, Robert, ‘Disagreement and the Value of Self-Trust’, Philosophical Studies, 172 (2015), 2315–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, Karl, ‘How Common is Peer Disagreement? On Self-Trust and Rational Symmetry’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 91 (2015), 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwitzgebel, Eric, Perplexities of Consciousness (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, Gregory, ‘The Electroencephalogram Argument against Incorrigibility’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 6 (1969), 62–70.Google Scholar
Sherman, Benjamin, ‘Questionable Peers and Spinelessness’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 45 (2015), 425–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, Ernest, ‘The Epistemology of Disagreement’, in Haddock, A., Millar, A., and Pritchard, D. (eds.), Social Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 278–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedgwood, Ralph, ‘The Moral Evil Demons’, in Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. (eds.), Disagreement (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 216–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Timothy, Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Wilson, Timothy and Dunn, Elizabeth, ‘Self-Knowledge: Its Limits, Value, and Potential for Improvement’, Annual Review of Psychology, 55 (2004), 493–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, Timothy and Nisbett, Richard, ‘The Accuracy of Verbal Reports about the Effects of Stimuli on Evaluations and Behavior’, Social Psychology, 41 (1978), 118–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar