Verbal Disagreement In Philosophy

/ Verbal Disagreement In Philosophy

Verbal Disagreement In Philosophy

We often disagree. You may think that nuclear energy is so volatile that no nuclear power plant should be built in the near future. But you know that there are a lot of people who disagree with you on this issue. You don`t agree with your sister regarding the location of the piano in your parents` house, thinking it was in the primary living room and they think it was in the little cave. You and many others believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead; Millions more disagree. On the range of views on the epistemic importance of differences of opinion, equal weight and steadfast view lie on opposite ends. While equal views on weight are quite conciliatory, steadfast View argues that attachment to one`s own weapons can be rational in the event of disagreement. In other words, finding a disagreement with one`s peers does not require a doxastic change. While the Equal Weight View can be seen as an emphasis on intellectual humility, the Steadfast View emphasizes having the courage of your convictions. Different motivations for Steadfast Views can be seen to reject different aspects of the vision of equality. We organized the different motivations for steadfast View, according to which the aspect of equal weight view is rejected (at least in the first place). It seems that the awareness of disagreements, at least in many cases, can give a strong reason to think that faith is false. When you learned that your sister thought the piano was in the cave rather than in the living room, you have a good reason to think that it really wasn`t in the living room, because you know very well that your sister is a generally intelligent person who has a proper background experience (she also lived in the house) and who is about as honest.

, frank and good to remember the events of childhood as they are. If, in the face of all this, you stick to your belief that the piano was in the living room, will your maintenance of that faith be reasonable? Kelly (2005) argues that while 3 evidence is for 2, this is not evidence for 1. If 3 is not proof of 1, learning 3 (by discovering the disagreement of colleagues) does not provide relevant evidence for the sentence at issue. If learning to disagree does not affect the opinion of peers on its own evidence that is relevant to the proposal at issue, then such a discovery, for which the doxastic attitude for peers is justified, does not change anything. From this point of view, the discovery of differences between the others makes no difference to what you should believe about the controversial proposal. Others agreed that personal information can act as symmetry breakers, giving the subject a reason to base one`s own opinion, but denies that such a benefit would occur in reasonably idealized cases of disagreement with peers (Matheson 2015a). The use of personal data to disregard the opinion of your interlocutor would not be contrary to independence, so the defender of the Equal Weight View does not have to disagree on this point. The phenomenon of differences of opinion is therefore a skeptical threat: for many of our valued convictions. If we are not protected, we know that there are many controversies about these beliefs, even among the smartest people who have worked the hardest to discover the truth of the matter.

By | 2020-12-20T02:51:53+00:00 Dezember 20th, 2020|Allgemein|0 Kommentare

About the Author: