Peerage

Episteme 6 (3):313-323 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Experts take sides in standing scholarly disagreements. They rely on the epistemic reasons favorable to their side to justify their position. It is argued here that no position actually has an overall balance of undefeated reasons in its favor. Candidates for such reasons include the objective strength of the rational support for one side, the special force of details in the case for one side, and a summary impression of truth. All such factors fail to justify any position.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.3366/e1742360009000732

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,130

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

On the necessity of the evidential equality condition for epistemic peerage.Michele Palmira - 2013 - Logos and Episteme 4 (1):113-123.
The demographic background of the peerage, 1603-1938.T. H. Hollingsworth - 1965 - The Eugenics Review 57 (2):56.
Aristocratic Century: The peerage of eighteenth-century England : John Cannon , x + 193 pp., £8.95/$13.95. [REVIEW]J. C. Davis - 1990 - History of European Ideas 12 (1):130-131.
Edward III and the English Peerage: Royal Patronage, Social Mobility and Political Control in Fourteenth-Century England. [REVIEW]Beth Hartland - 2005 - The Medieval Review 9.
Reasons Have no Weight.Dalia Drai - 2018 - Philosophical Quarterly 68 (270):60-76.
J. S. Bothwell, Edward III and the English Peerage: Royal Patronage, Social Mobility and Political Control in Fourteenth-Century England. Woodbridge, Eng., and Rochester, N.Y.: Boydell and Brewer, 2004. Pp. x, 232; tables. $75. [REVIEW]Helen E. Maurer - 2006 - Speculum 81 (1):151-152.
Inclusion and accountability in the public sphere.Christina Lafont - manuscript
Two epistemic accounts of democratic legitimacy.David Hershenov - manuscript
The relevance of metaphysics to the morality of abortion.David B. Hershenov & Rose J. Koch - manuscript
¿Dónde está la deducción objetiva de Kant?Gregg Osborne - 2007 - Areté. Revista de Filosofía 19 (1):87-118.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-06-16

Downloads
215 (#118,261)

6 months
19 (#151,556)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Earl Conee
University of Rochester

Citations of this work

Disagreement.Jonathan Matheson & Bryan Frances - 2018 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Disagreement and Epistemic Peers.Jonathan Matheson - 2015 - Oxford Handbooks Online.
On behalf of controversial view agnosticism.J. Adam Carter - 2018 - European Journal of Philosophy 26 (4):1358-1370.

View all 22 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

The epistemic significance of disagreement.Thomas Kelly - 2005 - In Tamar Szabo Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology Volume 1. Oxford University Press UK. pp. 167-196.
Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence.Thomas Kelly - 2010 - In Richard Feldman & Ted A. Warfield (eds.), Disagreement. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
Rational Disagreement Defended.Earl Conee - 2010 - In Richard Feldman & Ted A. Warfield (eds.), Disagreement. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.

Add more references