The value of epistemic disagreement in scientific practice. The case of Homo floresiensis

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Epistemic peer disagreement raises interesting questions, both in epistemology and in philosophy of science. When is it reasonable to defer to the opinion of others, and when should we hold fast to our original beliefs? What can we learn from the fact that an epistemic peer disagrees with us? A question that has received relatively little attention in these debates is the value of epistemic peer disagreement—can it help us to further epistemic goals, and, if so, how? We investigate this through a recent case in paleoanthropology: the debate on the taxonomic status of Homo floresiensis remains unresolved, with some authors arguing the fossils represent a novel hominin species, and others claiming that they are Homo sapiens with congenital growth disorders. Our examination of this case in the recent history of science provides insights into the value of peer disagreement, indicating that it is especially valuable if one does not straightaway defer to a peer’s conclusions, but nevertheless remains open to a peer’s evidence and arguments.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
CRUTVO
Upload history
Archival date: 2013-07-17
View other versions
Added to PP index
2013-07-17

Total views
1,541 ( #2,620 of 64,182 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
74 ( #9,139 of 64,182 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.