The epistemic significance of political disagreement

Bjørn Gunnar Hallsson

doi:10.1007/s11098-018-1121-8

The epistemic significance of political disagreement

Bjørn Gunnar Hallsson

Department of Communication

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The degree of doxastic revision required in response to evidence of disagreement is typically thought to be a function of our beliefs about (1) our interlocutor’s familiarity with the relevant evidence and arguments, and their intellectual capacities and virtues, relative to our own, or (2) the expected probability of our interlocutor being correct, conditional on our disagreeing. While these two factors are typically used interchangeably, I show that they have an inverse correlation in cases of disagreement about politically divisive propositions. This presents us with a puzzle about the epistemic impact of disagreement in these cases. The most significant disagreements on (1) are the least significant disagreements on (2), and vice versa. I show that assessing the epistemic status of an interlocutor by reference to either (1) or (2) has uncomfortable consequences in these cases. I then argue that this puzzle cannot be escaped by claiming that we usually have dispute-independent reason to reject the significance of politically charged disagreement altogether.

Original language	English
Journal	Philosophical Studies
ISSN	0031-8116
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1121-8
Publication status	Published - 15 Aug 2019

Access to Document

10.1007/s11098-018-1121-8

Cite this

@article{a875269580df4f70ae26f507f20ed060,

title = "The epistemic significance of political disagreement",

abstract = "The degree of doxastic revision required in response to evidence of disagreement is typically thought to be a function of our beliefs about (1) our interlocutor{\textquoteright}s familiarity with the relevant evidence and arguments, and their intellectual capacities and virtues, relative to our own, or (2) the expected probability of our interlocutor being correct, conditional on our disagreeing. While these two factors are typically used interchangeably, I show that they have an inverse correlation in cases of disagreement about politically divisive propositions. This presents us with a puzzle about the epistemic impact of disagreement in these cases. The most significant disagreements on (1) are the least significant disagreements on (2), and vice versa. I show that assessing the epistemic status of an interlocutor by reference to either (1) or (2) has uncomfortable consequences in these cases. I then argue that this puzzle cannot be escaped by claiming that we usually have dispute-independent reason to reject the significance of politically charged disagreement altogether.",

author = "Hallsson, {Bj{\o}rn Gunnar}",

year = "2019",

month = aug,

day = "15",

doi = "10.1007/s11098-018-1121-8",

language = "English",

journal = "Philosophical Studies",

issn = "0031-8116",

publisher = "Springer",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The epistemic significance of political disagreement

AU - Hallsson, Bjørn Gunnar

PY - 2019/8/15

Y1 - 2019/8/15

N2 - The degree of doxastic revision required in response to evidence of disagreement is typically thought to be a function of our beliefs about (1) our interlocutor’s familiarity with the relevant evidence and arguments, and their intellectual capacities and virtues, relative to our own, or (2) the expected probability of our interlocutor being correct, conditional on our disagreeing. While these two factors are typically used interchangeably, I show that they have an inverse correlation in cases of disagreement about politically divisive propositions. This presents us with a puzzle about the epistemic impact of disagreement in these cases. The most significant disagreements on (1) are the least significant disagreements on (2), and vice versa. I show that assessing the epistemic status of an interlocutor by reference to either (1) or (2) has uncomfortable consequences in these cases. I then argue that this puzzle cannot be escaped by claiming that we usually have dispute-independent reason to reject the significance of politically charged disagreement altogether.

AB - The degree of doxastic revision required in response to evidence of disagreement is typically thought to be a function of our beliefs about (1) our interlocutor’s familiarity with the relevant evidence and arguments, and their intellectual capacities and virtues, relative to our own, or (2) the expected probability of our interlocutor being correct, conditional on our disagreeing. While these two factors are typically used interchangeably, I show that they have an inverse correlation in cases of disagreement about politically divisive propositions. This presents us with a puzzle about the epistemic impact of disagreement in these cases. The most significant disagreements on (1) are the least significant disagreements on (2), and vice versa. I show that assessing the epistemic status of an interlocutor by reference to either (1) or (2) has uncomfortable consequences in these cases. I then argue that this puzzle cannot be escaped by claiming that we usually have dispute-independent reason to reject the significance of politically charged disagreement altogether.

U2 - 10.1007/s11098-018-1121-8

DO - 10.1007/s11098-018-1121-8

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0031-8116

JO - Philosophical Studies

JF - Philosophical Studies

ER -

The epistemic significance of political disagreement

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this