PhilArchive
open access
Questionable Peers and Spinelessness
The Equal Weight View holds that, when we discover we disagree with an epistemic peer, we should give our peer’s judgment as much weight as our own. But how should we respond when we cannot tell whether those who disagree with us are our epistemic peers? I argue for a position I will call the Earn-a-Spine View. According to this view, parties to a disagreement can remain confdent, at least in some situations, by fnding justifable reasons to think their opponents are less credible than themselves, even if those reasons are justifable only because they lack information about their opponents.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Epistemologia różnicy zdań#736832
- Epistemic Abstainers, Epistemic Martyrs, and Epistemic Converts#115578
- Epistemic Arrogance and Political Dissent#749875
- Personal Information as Symmetry Breaker in Disagreements#73047
- The Ubiquity of Higher-Order Defeat#113531
Record · ID 700577
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive