Disagreement and Evidential Attenuation

Noûs 47 (4):767-794 (2013)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
What sort of doxastic response is rational to learning that one disagrees with an epistemic peer who has evaluated the same evidence? I argue that even weak general recommendations run the risk of being incompatible with a pair of real epistemic phenomena, what I call evidential attenuation and evidential amplification. I focus on a popular and intuitive view of disagreement, the equal weight view. I take it to state that in cases of peer disagreement, a subject ought to end up equally confident that her own opinion is correct as that the opinion of her peer is. I say why we should regard the equal weight view as a synchronic constraint on (prior) credence functions. I then spell out a trilemma for the view: it violates what are intuitively correct updates (also leading to violations of conditionalisation), it poses implausible restrictions on prior credence functions, or it is non-substantive. The sorts of reasons why the equal weight view fails apply to other views as well: there is no blanket answer to the question of how a subject should adjust her opinions in cases of peer disagreement
PhilPapers/Archive ID
LASDAE
Revision history
First archival date: 2013-12-05
Latest version: 3 (2013-12-05)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Knowledge and its Limits.Williamson, Timothy
Higher-Order Evidence.Christensen, David

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
A Game-Theoretic Approach to Peer Disagreement.Heesen, Remco & van der Kolk, Pieter
Subjective Probability and its Dynamics.Hajek, Alan & Staffel, Julia

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2013-11-14

Total views
266 ( #10,955 of 39,604 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
16 ( #25,445 of 39,604 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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