Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-frp75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T15:08:27.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peerage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Earl Conee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experts take sides in standing scholarly disagreements. They rely on the epistemic reasons favorable to their side to justify their position. It is argued here that no position actually has an overall balance of undefeated reasons in its favor. Candidates for such reasons include the objective strength of the rational support for one side, the special force of details in the case for one side, and a summary impression of truth. All such factors fail to justify any position.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , October 2009 , pp. 313 - 323
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

Conee, Earl. Forthcoming. “Rational Disagreement Defended.” In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. (eds.), Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas. 2005. “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.” In Gendler, T. S. and Hawthorne, J. (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, vol. 1, pp. 167–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Thomas. Forthcoming. “Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence.” In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. (eds.), Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin. 1995. “Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism.” In Senor, T. D. (ed.), The Rationality of Belief and the Plurality of Faith: Essays in Honor of William P. Alston. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
van, Inwagen Peter. 1996. “Is It Wrong Everywhere, Always, and for Anyone to Believe Anything on Insufficient Evidence?” In Jordan, J. and Howard-Snyder, D. (eds.), Faith, Freedom, and Rationality. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Retrieved July 5, 2009, from http://comp.uark.edu/~senor/wrong.htmlGoogle Scholar