Reversibility or Disagreement

Mind 122 (485):43-84 (2013)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
The phenomenon of disagreement has recently been brought into focus by the debate between contextualists and relativist invariantists about epistemic expressions such as ‘might’, ‘probably’, indicative conditionals, and the deontic ‘ought’. Against the orthodox contextualist view, it has been argued that an invariantist account can better explain apparent disagreements across contexts by appeal to the incompatibility of the propositions expressed in those contexts. This paper introduces an important and underappreciated phenomenon associated with epistemic expressions — a phenomenon that we call reversibility. We argue that the invariantist account of disagreement is incompatible with reversibility, and we go on to show that reversible sentences cast doubt on the putative data about disagreement, even without assuming invariantism. Our argument therefore undermines much of the motivation for invariantism, and provides a new source for constraints on the proper explanation of purported data about disagreement
PhilPapers/Archive ID
ROSRAD
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Epistemic Modals.Seth Yalcin - 2007 - Mind 116 (464):983-1026.
Ifs and Oughts.Kolodny, Niko & MacFarlane, John

View all 52 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Retractions.Marques, Teresa
Tempered Expressivism.Schroeder, Mark
Relative Correctness.Marques, Teresa

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2010-03-22

Total views
813 ( #2,594 of 40,685 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
64 ( #8,319 of 40,685 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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