Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Faultless Disagreement, Cognitive Command, and Epistemic Peers.John K. Davis - 2015 - Synthese 192 (1):1-24.
    Relativism and contextualism are the most popular accounts of faultless disagreement, but Crispin Wright once argued for an account I call divergentism. According to divergentism, parties who possess all relevant information and use the same standards of assessment in the same context of utterance can disagree about the same proposition without either party being in epistemic fault, yet only one of them is right. This view is an alternative to relativism, indexical contextualism, and nonindexical contextualism, and has advantages over those (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • The Normative Significance of Deep Disagreement.Dare Tim - unknown
    Some normative problems are difficult because of the number and complexity of the issues they involve. Rational resolution might be hard but it seems at least possible. Other problems are not merely complex and multi-faceted but ‘deep’. They have a logical structure that precludes rational resolution. Treatments of deep disagreement often hint at sinister implications. If doubt is cast on our 'final vocabulary', writes Richard Rorty, we are left with "no noncircular argumentative recourse.... [B]eyond them there is only helpless passivity (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Disagreement Over Vaccination Programmes: Deep Or Merely Complex and Why Does It Matter? [REVIEW]Tim Dare - 2014 - HEC Forum 26 (1):43-57.
    This paper argues that significant aspects of the vaccination debate are ‘deep’ in a sense described by Robert Fogelin and others. Some commentators have suggested that such disagreements warrant rather threatening responses. I argue that appreciating that a disagreement is deep might have positive implications, changing our moral assessment of individuals and their decisions, shedding light on the limits of the obligation to give and respond to arguments in cases of moral disagreement, and providing an incentive to seek alternative ways (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations