منابع مشابه
Calibrated probabilities and the epistemology of disagreement
The epistemology of disagreement concerns the normative question of how you ought to revise your beliefs in a very specific epistemic context. Imagine that you and a peer form an opinion in isolation about whether P in response to mutually shared evidence, and you take your peer to be just as reliable as you about matters of this kind. How are you to respond should you subsequently discover tha...
متن کاملDisagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy
How much should your confidence in your beliefs be shaken when you learn that others – perhaps ‘epistemic peers’ who seem as well-qualified as you are – hold beliefs contrary to yours? This article describes motivations that push different philosophers towards opposite answers to this question. It identifies a key theoretical principle that divides current writers on the epistemology of disagre...
متن کاملEmotional Backing and the Feeling of Deep Disagreement
This paper discusses Toulmin’s (1964) concept of backing with respect to the emotional mode of arguing. Specifically, I examine an example from Fogelin (1985) where emotional backing justifies a warrant concerning when we should judge that a person is being pig-headed. While his treatment of this kind of argument can be supported by contemporary emotion science, it needs to be supplemented by t...
متن کاملThe epistemology of Deep Brain Stimulation and neuronal pathophysiology
Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is a remarkable therapy succeeding where all manner of pharmacological manipulations and brain transplants fail. The success of DBS has resurrected the relevance of electrophysiology and dynamics on the order of milliseconds. Despite the remarkable effects of DBS, its mechanisms of action are largely unknown. There has been an expanding catalogue of various neuronal...
متن کاملOvercoming Expert Disagreement In A Delphi Process. An Exercise In Reverse Epistemology
Disagreement among experts is a central topic in social epistemology. What should an expert do when confronted with the different opinion of an epistemic peer? Possible answers include the steadfast view (holding to one’s belief), the abstemious view (suspending one’s judgment), and moderate conciliatory views, which specify criteria for belief change when a peer’s different opinion is encounte...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Synthese
سال: 2018
ISSN: 0039-7857,1573-0964
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-018-01956-2