Abstract
In the previous chapter I argued that there are significant differences between simple and complex cases of disagreement. In this chapter I analyze the strict notion of epistemic peerhood used throughout the epistemology of disagreement literature. Such notions typically involve the idea that agents are strict evidential and cognitive equals. I show that this notion rarely, if ever, obtains in cases of real-world disagreement. If this is true, then the sceptical threat to rational inquiry posed by strong conciliationism would evaporate. However, I conclude with a new account of epistemic peerhood that is broad enough to apply to many cases of real-world disagreement between inquirers, and yet not so permissive so as to lose the epistemic significance of disagreement.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
