Year: 2019
Type: article
Abstract: In this paper, I argue that the two most common views of how to respond rationally to peer disagreement—the Total Evidence View (TEV) and the Equal Weight View (EWV)—are both inadequate for substantial reasons. TEV does not issue the correct intuitive verdicts about a number of hypothetical cases of peer disagreement. The same is true for EWV. In addition, EWV does not give any explanation of what is rationally required of agents on the basis of sufficiently general epistemic principles. I will then argue that there is a genuine alternative to both views—the Preemption View (PV)—that fares substantially better in both respects. I will give an outline and a detailed defense of PV in the paper.
Source: Philosophical Issues
DOI: 10.1111/phis.12144
Author: Thomas Grundmann
Institution: University of Cologne
Language: English
Subfield: Philosophy
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $2,500
Funder: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
OpenAlex ID: W2972022305