Abstract
AbstractAccording to conciliatory views on the significance of disagreement, it’s rational for you to become less confident in your take on an issue in case your epistemic peer’s take on it is different. These views are intuitively appealing, but they also face a powerful objection: in scenarios that involve disagreements over their own correctness, conciliatory views appear to self-defeat and, thereby, issue inconsistent recommendations. This paper provides a response to this objection. Drawing on the work from defeasible logics paradigm and abstract argumentation, it develops a formal model of conciliatory reasoning and explores its behavior in the troubling scenarios. The model suggests that the recommendations that conciliatory views issue in such scenarios are perfectly reasonable—even if outwardly they may look odd.
Highlights
These fall in three categories, depending on how they respond to two crucial questions about the behavior of conciliatory views in cases like Double Disagreement
The first is that the question of whether it’s rational to retain the belief in free will turns out to depend on the relative degrees of confidence in the reasoning that led the agent to conclude that free will exists and the reasoning that led her to conclude that the disagreement over free will is genuine, Seems(L) and Seems(Disagree(L))
Our starting point was an important worry about conciliatory views: they would seem to self-defeat and issue inconsistent recommendations in scenarios involving disagreements over their own correctness
Summary
These three sections are followed by a brief conclusion and an appendix, verifying the main observations
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
