What Should We Do in the Face of Epistemic Peer Disagreement?

  • Andrea Robitzsch
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 411)


In the previous chapter, I have introduced an E-RULE approach to epistemic responsibility assessment. I have argued that this doxastic responsibility assessment is epistemically significant because it is governed by certain epistemic norms, namely the norms of reliable intellectual conduct. Moreover, I have argued that the performance of belief-influencing actions and omissions which are licensed by the norms of reliable intellectual conduct conduces to produce epistemic value. In this chapter, I want to put to work what has been said about the epistemic significance of the norms of reliable intellectual conduct and epistemic responsibility assessment. In what follows, I want to apply what has been said in the previous chapter to the debate about the epistemic significance of epistemic peer disagreement. In what follows EPD will refer to epistemic peer disagreement.


  1. Alston, W. P. (1988a). An internalist externalism. Synthese, 74(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergmann, M. (2006). Justification without awareness: A defense of epistemic externalism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergmann, M. (2009). Rational disagreement after full disclosure. Episteme, 6(3), 336–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bondy, P. (2015). Epistemic value. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from
  5. Bykvist, K., & Hattiangadi, A. (2007). Does thought imply ought? Analysis, 67(296), 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christensen, D. (2007). Epistemology of disagreement: The good news. Philosophical Review, 116(2), 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensen, D. (2009). Disagreement as evidence: The epistemology of controversy. Philosophy Compass, 4(5), 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen, D. (2010). Higher-order evidence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81(1), 185–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Douven, I., & Kelp, C. (2011). Truth approximation, social epistemology, and opinion dynamics. Erkenntnis, 75(2), 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elga, A. (2007). Reflection and disagreement. Noûs, 41(3), 478–8211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feldman, R. (2006). Epistemological puzzles about disagreement. In S. Hetherington (Ed.), Epistemology futures (pp. 216–326). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Feldman, R. (2009). Evidentialism, higher-order evidence, and disagreement. Episteme, 6(3), 294–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feldman, R., & Conee, E. (1985). Evidentialism. Philosophical Studies, 48(1), 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldberg, S. C. (2009). Reliabilism in philosophy. Philosophical Studies, 142(1), 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldman, A. I. (1999). Internalism exposed. The Journal of Philosophy, 96(6), 271–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grundmann, T. (2011). Defeasibility theory. In S. Bernecker & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Routledge companion to epistemology (pp. 156–165). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Grundmann, T. (2013). Doubts about philosophy? The alleged challenge from disagreement. In T. Henning & D. Schweikard (Eds.), Knowledge, virtue, and action. Essays on putting epistemic virtues to work (pp. 72–98). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, R. J., & Johnson, C. R. (1998). The epistemic duty to seek more evidence. American Philosophical Quarterly, 35(2), 129–139.Google Scholar
  19. Howard-Snyder, F. (2006). “Cannot” implies “Not Ought”. Philosophical Studies, 130(2), 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelly, T. (2005). The epistemic significance of disagreement. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 1, pp. 167–196). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kelly, T. (2008). Evidence: Fundamental concepts and the phenomenal conception. Philosophy Compass, 3(5), 933–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelly, T. (2010). Peer disagreement and higher-order evidence. In R. Feldman & T. A. Warfield (Eds.), Disagreement (pp. 111–174). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelly, T. (2013). Disagreement and the burdens of judgment. In D. Christensen & J. Lackey (Eds.), The epistemology of disagreement: New essays (pp. 31–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kelp, C., & Douven, I. (2012). Sustaining a rational disagreement. In H. W. Regt (Ed.), EPSA philosophy of science: Amsterdam 2009 (pp. 101–110). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kornblith, H. (2010). Belief in the face of controversy. In R. Feldman & T. A. Warfield (Eds.), Disagreement (pp. 29–52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). Reflections on my critics. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 231–278). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lugg, A. (1978). Disagreement in science. Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie, 9(2), 276–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Matheson, J. (2009). Conciliatory views of disagreement and higher-order evidence. Episteme, 6(3), 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Matheson, J. (2011). The case for rational uniqueness. Logic and Episteme, 2(3), 359–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (1992). An argument for consequentialism. Philosophical Perspectives, 6, 399–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sudduth, M. (2008). Defeaters in epistemology. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from
  32. Thune, M. (2010). ‘Partial Defeaters’ and the epistemology of disagreement. Philosophical Quarterly, 60(239), 355–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wedgwood, R. (2002). The aim of belief. Philosophical Perspectives, 36(s16), 267–97.Google Scholar
  34. Wedgwood, R. (2010). The moral evil demons. In R. Feldman & T. A. Warfield (Eds.), Disagreement (pp. 216–246). Cambridge: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wedgwood, R. (2013b). The right thing to believe. In T. Chan (Ed.), The aim of belief (pp. 123–139). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Robitzsch
    • 1
  1. 1.University of OsnabrückOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations