چکیده:
In this paper I propose an argument against the conciliatory view in
peer disagreement. One of the most important grounds for conciliatory
views is the assumption that the epistemic situation in peer disagreement
between two peers is symmetri cal. Symmetry justifies the conciliatory
views. If so, showing that the situation is actually asymmetric should
count as a refutation to conciliatory views of disagreement. By appealing
to the difference between the processes by which the beliefs of the two
parties have been formed, I try to show that there is a difference between
the reliabilities of the two beliefs. This means the asymmetrical situation
between two peers in disagreement. Since the conciliatory and steadfast
views are contradictory views, any argument against one of them should
be considered as an argument for the other.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Someone may understand the Equal Weight View as a thesis according to which you should consider your own belief and your peer's to be of the same degree of credence.
As I mentioned earlier, most philosophers who discuss about disagreement say that in order for S1 and S2 to be epistemic peers they should be equal in respect to their intellectual abilities and their evidence concerning the proposition on which they disagree.
2. The main argument When S1 and S2 disagree concerning P (S1 takes it as true and S2 takes it as false), according to the Equal Weight View, S1 should assume that she is confronted with two beliefs with the same degree of credence.
The more reliability S1 attributes to their Intuition Process, the greater degree of credence they are justified to assign to their belief P1 .
Also S1 should assign the same degree of credence to S2's intuitive beliefs, since S1 knows that S2 is her epistemic peer and this entails that S1 believes that S2's Intuition Process is as reliable as her own Intuition Process.
3. Objections and Responses The fi rst objecti on to the argument and i ts response As we have seen, the former argument shows that while we consider the degrees of reliability of two different processes, say, intuition and testimony –when one finds herself engaged in a peer disagreement – one should assign a larger degree of reliability to their belief and therefore there would not be a symmetric situation between two peers.