2004
Volume 108, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0002-5275
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1244

Abstract

Abstract

Some sceptics claim that in cases of peer disagreement, we ought to suspend judgment about the topic of discussion. In this paper, we argue that the sceptic’s conclusions are only correct in scenarios. We show that the sceptic’s conclusion is built on two premises (the and the ) and argue that both premises are incorrect. First, we show that although it is often rational to suspend judgment when an epistemic peer disagrees with you, peer disagreements are not symmetrical. Next, we argue that even if one assumes that peer disagreements symmetrical, it might still be rational to stick to one’s guns in the light of peer disagreement.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2016.1.KOLK
2016-02-28
2021-11-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/00025275/108/1/04_ANTW1601.1.KOLK.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2016.1.KOLK&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2016.1.KOLK
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error