Résumés
Abstract
In the epistemology of disagreement literature an underdeveloped argument defending the claim that an agent need not conciliate when she becomes aware of epistemic peer disagreement is based on the idea that there are epistemic benefits to be gained from disagreement. Such benefits are unobtainable if an agent conciliates in the face of peer disagreement. I argue that there are good reasons to embrace this line of argument at least in inquiry-related contexts. In argumentation theory a deep disagreement occurs when there is a disagreement between fundamental frameworks. According to Robert J. Fogelin disagreements between fundamental frameworks are not susceptible to rational resolution. Instead of evaluating this claim I argue that deep disagreements can lead to epistemic benefits, at least when inquiry is in view. Whether rational resolution is possible in cases of deep disagreements, their existence turns out to be epistemically beneficial. I conclude by examining whether this line of argument can be taken beyond research-related contexts.
Keywords:
- deep disagreement,
- epistemology of disagreement,
- Fogelin
Résumé
Dans la littérature sur l'épistémologie du désaccord, un argument sous-développé pour une approche non conciliatoire se fonde sur l'idée qu'il y a des bénéfices épistémiques à tirer du désaccord. De tels bénéfices sont impossibles à obtenir si un agent se concilie face au désaccord avec ses pairs, du moins dans les contextes liés à la recherche. Dans la théorie de l'argumentation, un désaccord profond se produit lorsqu'il y a un désaccord entre des propositions cadres. Je soutiens que des désaccords profonds peuvent mener à des avantages épistémiques, du moins dans le contexte de la recherche. Que la résolution rationnelle soit ou non possible en cas de désaccord profond, leur existence s'avère être bénéfique sur le plan épistémologique.
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Adams, David M. 2005. “Knowing when disagreements are deep” Informal Logic 25(1): 65-77.
- Ballantyne, Nathan. 2014. “Counterfactual philosophers.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 88(2): 368-387.
- Behe J. Michael. 2006. Darwin’s black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. New York: Free Press.
- Behe J. Michael. 2008. The edge of evolution: The search for the of limits of darwinism. New York: Free Press.
- Bergmann, Michael. 2009. “Rational disagreement after full disclosure.” Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 6: 336–353.
- Billig, M. 1996. Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge U.P.
- Blinder, A.S. & J. Morgan. 2000. “Are two heads better than one? An experimental analysis of group vs. Individual decision making.” Working Paper 2909, National Bureau of Economic Research. Princeton, N.J.
- Christensen, David. 2007. “Epistemology of disagreement: The good news.” Philosophical Review 116(2): 187–217.
- Christensen, David. 2014. “Disagreement and public controversy.” In Essays in Collective Epistemology, eds. Jennifer Lackey, 142-162. Oxford U.P.
- Crisp, R.J. & R.N. Turner. 2011. “Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social and cultural diversity.” Psychological bulletin, 137:2.
- Davson-Galle, Peter. 1992. “Arguments, arguing, and deep disagreements” Informal Logic 14(2): 147-156.
- Dessalles, J-L. 2007. Why we talk: The evolutionary origins of language. Oxford U.P.
- Downs, Robert B. 1982. Landmarks in Science: Hippocrates to Carson. Littleton, Colo.
- Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). “Political diversity will improve social psychological science.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38: e130.
- Elga, A. 2007. “Reflection and disagreement.” Noûs, 41(3): 478–502.
- Elgin, C. 2010. “Persistent disagreement.” In Disagreement, eds. Richard Feldman & Ted A. Warfield, 53-68. Oxford U.P.
- Feldman, R. 2005. “Deep disagreement, rational resolutions, and critical thinking” Informal Logic 25(1): 13-23.
- Feldman, R. 2007. “Reasonable religious disagreements.” In Philosophers Without Gods, eds. Louise Antony, 194-214. Oxford U.P.
- Fiske, S.T., Harris, L.T., and A.J.C. Cuddy. 2004. “Why ordinary people torture enemy prisoners.” Science, 1482-1483.
- Friemann, R. 2005. “Emotional backing the feeling of deep disagreement” Informal Logic 25(1): 51-63.
- Fogelin, R. J. 1985 [2005]. “The logic of deep disagreements” Informal Logic. 7(1): 1-8
- Kelly, T. 2005. “The epistemic significance of disagreement.” In Oxford Studies in Epistemology, eds. John Hawthorne and Tamar Szabó Gendler, 167-196. Oxford University Press.
- Kelly, T. 2010. “Peer disagreement and higher order evidence.” In Disagreement, eds. Richard Feldman and Ted A. Warfield, 111-174. Oxford U.P.
- King, Nathan L. (2012). “Disagreement: What’s the problem? or A good peer is hard to find.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85(2): 249-272.
- Kuhn, Thomas. 2013. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
- Lackey, Jennifer. 2010a. “What should we do when we disagree?” In Oxford Studies in Epistemology, eds. Tamar Szabo Gendler & John Hawthorne, 274-293. Oxford U.P.
- Lackey, J. 2010b. “A justificationist view of disagreement’s epistemic significance.” In Social Epistemology, eds. Adrian Haddock, Alan Millar, and Duncan Pritchard. Oxford U.P.
- Laughlin, P.R., Bonner, B.L. & Minder, A.G. 2002. “Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 88(2): 605-620.
- Laughlin, P.R., Hatch, E.C., Silver, J.S. & Boh, L. 2006. “Groups perform better than the best individuals on letter-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(4): 644-51.
- Laughlin, P.R., Zander, M.L., Knievel, E.M. & Tan, T.S. 2003. “Groups perform better than the best individuals on letter-to-numbers problems: Informative equations and effective reasoning.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4): 684-694.
- Lombardelli, C., Proudman, J. & Talbot, J. 2005. “Committees versus individuals: An experimental analysis of monetary policy decision-making.” International Journal of Central Banking, 1(1): 181-205. Lougheed, K. “All-Thing-Considered Epistemic Rationality and Avoiding the Sceptical Consequences of the Equal Weight View.” Unpublished Manuscript.
- Lougheed, K. 2017. “The Role of Idealized Cases in the Epistemology of Disagreement.” Southwest Philosophy Review, 33(2): 251-270.
- Lougheed, K. & R.M. Simpson. 2017. “Indirect Epistemic Reasons and Religious Belief. Religious Studies, 53(2): 151-169.
- Lugg, Andrew. 1986. “Disagreement and informal logic: No cause for alarm” Informal Logic 8(1): 47-51.
- Matheson, J. 2015a. The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Matheson, J. 2015b. “Disagreement and the ethics of belief.” In The future of social epistemology: a collective vision, eds. James H Collier, 139148. USA: Rowman and Littlefield.
- Memedi, V. 2007. Resolving deep disagreement. In H.V. Hansen, et. al. (Eds.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground, CD-ROM (pp. 1-10). Windsor, ON: OSSA.
- Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences, 34(2): 57-74.
- Mercer, H., Sperber, D. 2017. The Enigma of Reason. Harvard U.P.
- Michaelsen, L.K., Watson, W.E. & Black, R.H. (1989). “A realistic test of individual versus group consensus decision making.” Journal of Applied Psychology 74(5): 834-839.
- Moscovici, C & Personnaz, B. 1980. “Studies in social influence: V. Minority influence and conversion behavior in a perceptual task.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 16(3): 270-282.
- Moshman, D & Molly Geil. 1998. “Collaborative reasoning: Evidence for collective rationality.” Educational Psychology Papers and Publications 52: 231-248.
- Nemeth, C.M. 1995. “Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and Nemeth, C., Brown, K. & Rogers, J. 2001. “Devil’s advocate versus authentic dissent: Stimulating quantity and quality.” European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(6): 707-720.
- Page, S. 2007. The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, and societies. USA: Princeton U.P.
- Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press.
- Phillips, D. 2008. “Investigating the shared background requirement for argument: A critique of Fogelin’s thesis on deep disagreement” Informal Logic 28(2): 86-101.
- Siegel, Harvey (2013). Argumentation and the epistemology of disagreement. In Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), eds.
- Mohammed, D., & Lewiński, M., 22-26 May 2013. Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1-22.
- Sniezek, J.A. & Henry, R.A. 1989. “Accuracy and confidence in group judgment.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 43(1): 1-28.
- Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. 2010. Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language 25(4): 359-393
- Sperber, D. 2000. “Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective.” In Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective, eds. Dan
- Sperber, 117-137. Oxford U.P. Sperber, D. 2001. “An evolutionary perspective on testimony and argumentation.” Philosophical Topics 29: 401-413.
- Sosa, E. 2010. “The epistemology of disagreement.” In Social Epistemology, eds. Alan Haddock, Adrian Millar & Duncan Pritchard, 278-297. Oxford University Press. [First published in 2009. Episteme 6(3): 269–279.]
- Stasson, M.F., Kameda, T., Parks, C.D., Zimmerman, S.K. & Davis, J.H. 1991. “Effects of assigned group consensus requirement on group problem solving and group members’ learning.” Social Psychology Quarterly 54(1): 25-35.
- Surowiecki, J. 2004. The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. USA: Random House, Inc.
- Tindale, R.S. & Sheffey, S. 2002. “Shared information, cognitive load, and group memory.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 5(1): 5-18.
- Turner, Dale & Larry Wright. (2005). “Revisiting deep disagreement” Informal Logic 25(1): 25-35.
- Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1972. On Certainty. Harper Perennial. Zoltán, Imre. (Accessed August 21, 2014). “Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis,” in Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition.