Description
Book SynopsisThe Epistemology of Disagreement brings together essays from a dozen philosophers on the epistemic significance of disagreement; all but one of the essays are new. Questions discussed include: When (if ever) does the disagreement of others require a rational agent to revise her beliefs? Do ''conciliatory'' accounts, on which agents are required to revise significantly, suffer from fatal problems of self-defeat, given the disagreement about disagreement? What is the significance of disagreement about philosophical topics in particular? How does the epistemology of disagreement relate to broader epistemic theorizing? Does the increased significance of multiple disagreeing agents depend on their being independent of one another? John Hawthorne and Amia Srinivasan, Thomas Kelly, and Brian Weatherson all weigh in with attacks on conciliatory views or defenses of non-conciliatory approaches. David Christensen and Stewart Cohen take up the opposite side of the debate. Bryan Frances, Sanford G
Trade Reviewthis book advances our previous understanding of the topic and draws attention to new issues for exploration. It is essential reading for anyone interested in epistemological and meta-philosophical topics. * Nathan Ballantyne, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews *
Table of ContentsPART ONE: THE DEBATE BETWEEN CONCILIATORY AND STEADFAST THEORISTS; A. FOR STEADFASTNESS; B. FOR CONCILIATION; PART TWO: DISAGREEMENT IN PHILOSOPHY; PART THREE: NEW CONCEPTS AND NEW PROBLEMS IN THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF DISAGREEMENT
