How to respond rationally to peer disagreement: The preemption view

Philosophical Issues 29 (1):129-142 (2019)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
In this paper, I argue that the two most common views of how to respond rationally to peer disagreement–the Total Evidence View (TEV) and the Equal Weight View (EWV)–are both inadequate for substantial reasons. TEV does not issue the correct intuitive verdicts about a number of hypothetical cases of peer disagreement. The same is true for EWV. In addition, EWV does not give any explanation of what is rationally required of agents on the basis of sufficiently general epistemic principles. I will then argue that there is a genuine alternative to both views–the Preemption View (PV)–that fares substantially better in both respects. I will give an outline and a detailed defense of PV in the paper.
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
THOHTR-2
Upload history
Archival date: 2019-08-21
View other versions
Added to PP index
2019-08-21

Total views
190 ( #31,393 of 2,449,196 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
16 ( #36,345 of 2,449,196 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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