Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T18:09:29.103Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Epistemology

Disagreement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2024

Diego E. Machuca
Diego E. Machuca
Affiliation:
National Council for Scientific and Technical Research

Summary

This Element engages with the epistemic significance of disagreement, focusing on its skeptical implications. It examines various types of disagreement-motivated skepticism in ancient philosophy, ethics, philosophy of religion, and general epistemology. In each case, it favors suspension of judgment as the seemingly appropriate response to the realization of disagreement. One main line of argument pursued in the Element is that, since in real-life disputes we have limited or inaccurate information about both our own epistemic standing and the epistemic standing of our dissenters, personal information and self-trust can rarely function as symmetry breakers in favor of our own views.
Get access

Keywords

peer disagreementskepticismsuspension of judgmentbiasfirst-person perspective
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Epistemology
Online ISBN: 9781009324458
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 19 December 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alston, W. 1988. “Religious Diversity and Perceptual Knowledge of God,” Faith and Philosophy 5(4): 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alston, W. 1991. Perceiving God. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Ballantyne, N. 2019. Knowing Our Limits. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballantyne, N. & Coffman, E. 2011. “Uniqueness, Evidence, and Rationality,” Philosophers’ Imprint 11(18): 1–6.Google Scholar
Ballantyne, N. & Coffman, E. 2012. “Conciliationism and Uniqueness,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90(4): 657–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballew, C. & Todorov, A. 2007. “Predicting Political Elections from Rapid and Unreflective Face Judgments,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(46): 17948–17953.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, J. 1990. The Toils of Scepticism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bell, P. & Volckmann, D. 2011. “Knowledge Surveys in General Chemistry: Confidence, Overconfidence, and Performance,” Journal of Chemical Education 88(11): 1469–1476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, J., Meredith, M., & Wheeler, S. 2008. “Contextual Priming: Where People Vote Affects How They Vote,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(26): 8846–8849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergmann, M. 2006. Justification without Awareness. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheek, N. & Pronin, E. 2022. “I’m Right, You’re Biased: How We Understand Ourselves and Others.” In Ballantyne, N. & Dunning, D. (eds.), Reason, Bias, and Inquiry, 35–59. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, D. & Loecher, M. 2022. “Mood and the Malleability of Moral Reasoning: The Impact of Irrelevant Factors on Judicial Decisions,” SSRN Electronic Journal, September 21: 1–70.Google Scholar
Chen, D., Moskowitz, T., & Shue, K. 2016. “Decision Making under the Gambler’s Fallacy: Evidence from Asylum Judges, Loan Officers, and Baseball Umpires,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 131(3): 1181–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, D. & Philippe, A. 2023. “Clash of Norms: Judicial Leniency on Defendant Birthdays,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 211: 324–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. 2007. “Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News,” The Philosophical Review 116(2): 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. 2009. “Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy,” Philosophy Compass 4: 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. 2011. “Disagreement, Question-Begging and Epistemic Self-Criticism,” Philosophers’ Imprint 11(6): 1–22.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2013. “Epistemic Modesty Defended.” In Christensen & Lackey 2013, 77–97.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2014. “Disagreement and Public Controversy.” In Lackey, J. (ed.), Essays in Collective Epistemology, 142–163. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. 2019. “Formulating Independence.” In Skipper, M. & Steglich-Petersen, A. (eds.), Higher-Order Evidence, 13–34. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. & Lackey, J. (eds.). 2013. The Epistemology of Disagreement. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conee, E. 2010. “Rational Disagreement Defended.” In Feldman & Warfield 2010, 69–90.Google Scholar
Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. 2011. “Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(17): 6889–6892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Detre, K., Wright, E., Marvin, M., Murphy, L., & Takaro, T. 1975. “Observer Agreement in Evaluating Coronary Angiograms,” Circulation 52: 979–986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ditto, P. & Lopez, D. 1992. “Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(4): 568–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douven, I. 2009. “Uniqueness Revisited,” American Philosophical Quarterly 46(4): 347–361.Google Scholar
Dror, I., Champod, C., Langenburg, G. et al. 2011. “Cognitive Issues in Fingerprint Analysis: Inter- and Intra-Expert Consistency and the Effect of a ‘Target’ Comparison,” Forensic Science International 208(1–3): 10–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dror, I. & Charlton, D. 2006. “Why Experts Make Errors,” Journal of Forensic Identification 56(4): 600–616.Google Scholar
Dror, I., Charlton, D., & Péron, A. 2006. “Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications,” Forensic Science International 156(1): 74–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dror, I. & Rosenthal, R. 2008. “Meta-analytically Quantifying the Reliability and Biasability of Forensic Experts,” Journal of Forensic Science 53(4): 900–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, R., Kellner, K., Sistron, C. & Magyari, E. 2003. “Medical Student Self-Assessment of Performance on an Obstetrics and Gynecology Clerkship,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 188(4): 1078–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlinger, J., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. 2005. “Peering into the Bias Spot: People’s Assessments of Bias in Themselves and Others,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31(5): 680–692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. 2008. “Why the Unskilled Are Unaware: Further Explorations of (Absent) Self-Insight among the Incompetent,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105: 98–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elashi, F. & Mills, C. 2015. “Developing the Bias Blind Spot: Increasing Skepticism towards Others,” PLoS ONE 10(11): e0141809.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elga, A. 2007. “Reflection and Disagreement,” Noûs 41(3): 478–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elga, A. 2010. “How to Disagree about How to Disagree.” In Feldman & Warfield 2010, 175–186.Google Scholar
Enoch, D. 2010. “Not Just a Truthometer: Taking Oneself Seriously (but Not Too Seriously) in Cases of Peer Disagreement,” Mind 119(476): 953–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eren, O. & Mocan, N. 2018. “Emotional Judges and Unlucky Juveniles,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 10(3): 171–205.Google Scholar
Eskine, K., Kacinik, N., & Prinz, J. 2011. “A Bad Taste in the Mouth: Gustatory Disgust Influences Moral Judgment,” Psychological Science 22(3): 295–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, R. 2003. “Plantinga on Exclusivism,” Faith and Philosophy 20(1): 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. 2006. “Epistemological Puzzles about Disagreement.” In Hetherington, S. (ed.), Epistemology Futures, 216–236. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. 2007. “Reasonable Religious Disagreements.” In Antony, L. (ed.), Philosophers without Gods, 194–214. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. 2021. “Is There Something Special about Religious Disagreement?” In Benton, M. & Kvanvig, J. (eds.), Religious Disagreement & Pluralism, 108–126. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. & Warfield, T. (eds.). 2010. Disagreement. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, R. 2001. Intellectual Trust in Oneself and Others. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frances, B. 2010. “The Reflective Epistemic Renegade,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81(2): 419–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frances, B. 2014. Disagreement. Polity Press.Google Scholar
Frantz, C. 2006. “I Am Being Fair: The Bias Blind Spot as a Stumbling Block to Seeing Both Sides,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 28(2): 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frantz, C. & Janoff-Bulman, R. 2000. “Considering Both Sides: The Limits of Perspective Taking,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 22(1): 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, L., Garry, M., & Loftus, E. 2009. “False Memories: A Kind of Confabulation in Non-clinical Patients.” In Hirstein, W. (ed.), Confabulation, 33–66. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fumerton, R. 2010. “You Can’t Trust a Philosopher.” In Feldman & Warfield 2010, 91–110.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1986. Epistemology and Cognition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grimstad, S. & Jørgensen, M. 2007. “Inconsistency of Expert Judgment-Based Estimates of Software Development Effort,” Journal of Systems and Software 80(11): 1770–1777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutting, G. 1982. Religious Belief and Religious Skepticism. University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Hahn, U. & Harris, A. 2014. “What Does It Mean to Be Biased: Motivated Reasoning and Rationality.” In Ross, B. (ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation, volume 61, 41–102. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. 2001. “The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment,” Psychological Review 108(4): 814–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haidt, J. 2013. The Righteous Mind. Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Haun, D., Zeringue, A., Leach, A., & Foley, A. 2000. “Assessing the Competence of Specimen-Processing Personnel,” Laboratory Medicine 31: 633–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyes, A. & Saberian, S. 2019. “Temperature and Decisions: Evidence from 207,000 Court Cases,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 11(2): 238–265.Google Scholar
Hick, J. 1988. “Religious Pluralism and Salvation,” Faith and Philosophy 5(4): 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hick, J. 1997. “The Epistemological Challenge of Religious Pluralism,” Faith and Philosophy 14(3): 277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hick, J. 2004. An Interpretation of Religion. Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirstein, W. 2005. Brain Fiction. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hodges, B., Regehr, G., & Martin, D. 2001. “Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence: Novice Physicians Who Are Unskilled and Unaware of It,” Academic Medicine 76: S87–S89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, R. 2008. “An Examination of Judge Reliability at a Major U.S. Wine Competition,” Journal of Wine Economics 3(2): 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horberg, E., Oveis, C., Keltner, D., & Cohen, A. 2009. “Disgust and the Moralization of Purity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97(6): 963–976.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsiang, E., Mehta, S., Small, D. et al. 2019. “Association of Primary Care Clinic Appointment Time with Clinician Ordering and Patient Completion of Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening,” JAMA Network Open 2(5): 1–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Kahan, D., Peters, E., Dawson, E., & Slovic, P. 2017. “Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government,” Behavioural Public Policy 1(1): 54–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. 2021. Noise. Little, Brown Spark.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. 2005. “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement,” Oxford Studies in Epistemology 1: 167–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, T. 2010. “Peer Disagreement and Higher-Order Evidence.” In Feldman & Warfield 2010, 111–174.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. 2013. “Disagreement and the Burdens of Judgment.” In Christensen & Lackey 2013, 31–53.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. 2014. “Can Evidence Be Permissive?” In Steup, M., Turri, J., & Sosa, E. (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, 298–312. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. 2022. Bias. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, N. 2012. “Disagreement: What’s the Problem? Or a Good Peer Is Hard to Find,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85(2): 249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, N. 2013. “Disagreement: The Skeptical Arguments from Peerhood and Symmetry.” In Machuca 2013, 193–217.Google Scholar
Klein, P. 2011. “Epistemic Justification and the Limits of Pyrrhonism.” In Machuca, D. (ed.), Pyrrhonism in Ancient, Modern, and Contemporary Philosophy, 79–96. Springer.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H. 2010. “Belief in the Face of Controversy.” In Feldman & Warfield 2010, 29–52.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H. 2013. “Is Philosophical Knowledge Possible?” In Machuca 2013, 260–276.Google Scholar
Kruger, J. & Dunning, D. 1999. “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(6): 1121–1134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, T. 1977. “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.” In T. Kuhn (ed.), The Essential Tension, 320–339. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd edition. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukucka, J., Kassin, S., Zapf, P., & Dror, I. 2017. “Cognitive Bias and Blindness: A Global Survey of Forensic Science Examiners,” Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 6(4): 452–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Z. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin 108(3): 480–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kvanvig, J. 1983. “The Evidentialist Objection,” American Philosophical Quarterly 20(1): 47–55.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, J. 2021. “How to Be an Inclusivist.” In Benton, M. & Kvanvig, J. (eds.), Religious Disagreement and Pluralism, 217–237. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, J. 2010. “A Justificationist View of Disagreement’s Epistemic Significance.” In Haddock, A., Millar, A., & Pritchard, D. (eds.), Social Epistemology, 298–325. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, J. 2013. “Disagreement and Belief Dependence.” In Christensen & Lackey 2013, 243–268.Google Scholar
Linder, J., Doctor, J., Friedberg, M. et al. (2014). “Time of Day and the Decision to Prescribe Antibiotics,” JAMA Internal Medicine 174(12): 2029–2031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loftus, E. 1979. Eyewitness Memory. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lord, C., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. 1979. “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(11): 2098–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, C. & Taylor, C. 2009. “Biased Assimilation: Effects of Assumptions and Expectations on the Interpretation of New Evidence,” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 3(5): 827–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, E. 2014. “From Independence to Conciliationism: An Obituary,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 92(2): 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machuca, D. 2006. “The Pyrrhonist’s ἀταραξία and φιλανθρωπία,” Ancient Philosophy 26(1): 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machuca, D. (ed.). 2013. Disagreement and Skepticism. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machuca, D. 2020. “Sextus on Ataraxia Revisited,” Ancient Philosophy 40(2): 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machuca, D. 2022. Pyrrhonism Past and Present. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, J. L. 1977. Ethics. Penguin.Google Scholar
Mahoney, M. 1977. “Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System,” Cognitive Therapy and Research 1(2): 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matheson, J. 2011. “The Case for Rational Uniqueness,” Logos & Episteme 2(3): 359–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matheson, J. 2015. The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, S. 2008. “Moral Disagreement and Moral Expertise,” Oxford Studies in Metaethics 3: 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKim, R. 2012. On Religious Diversity. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercier, H. 2017. “Confirmation Bias – Myside Bias.” In Pohl, R. (ed.), Cognitive Illusions, 99–114. Routledge.Google Scholar
Moon, A. 2018. “Disagreement and New Ways to Remain Steadfast in the Face of Disagreement,” Episteme 15(1): 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, G. & Ditto, P. 1997. “Biased Assimilation, Attitude Polarization, and Affect in Reactions to Stereotype-Relevant Scientific Information,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23(6): 636–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, T. & Brodsky, S. 2016. “Forensic Psychologists’ Perceptions of Bias and Potential Correction Strategies in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 22(1): 58–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neprash, H. & Barnett, M. 2019. “Association of Primary Care Clinic Appointment Time with Opioid Prescribing,” JAMA Network Open 2(8): e1910373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nickerson, R. 1998. “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises,” Review of General Psychology 2(2): 175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R. & Wilson, T. 1977. “Telling More than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes,” Psychological Review 84(3): 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivola, C. & Todorov, A. 2010. “Elected in 100 Milliseconds: Appearance-Based Trait Inferences and Voting,” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 34(2): 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasnau, R. 2015. “Disagreement and the Value of Self-Trust,” Philosophical Studies 172(9): 2315–2339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philpot, L., Khokhar, B., Roellinger, D., Ramar, P., & Ebbert, J. 2018. “Time of Day Is Associated with Opioid Prescribing for Low Back Pain in Primary Care,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 33(11): 1828–1830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pittard, J. 2019. Disagreement, Deference, and Religious Commitment. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, A. 1993. Warrant and Proper Function. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, A. 1995. “Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism.” In Senor, T. (ed.), The Rationality of Belief and the Plurality of Faith, 191–215. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Plantinga, A. 2000. Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pronin, E. 2007. “Perception and Misperception of Bias in Human Judgment,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11(1): 37–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pronin, E. 2009. “The Introspection Illusion,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 41: 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pronin, E., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. 2004. “Objectivity in the Eye of the Beholder: Divergent Perceptions of Bias in Self versus Others,” Psychological Review 111(3): 781–799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pronin, E., Kruger, J., Savitsky, K., & Ross, L. 2001. “You Don’t Know Me, but I Know You: The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81(4): 639–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pronin, E. & Kugler, M. 2007. “Valuing Thoughts, Ignoring Behavior: The Introspection Illusion as a Source of the Bias Blind Spot,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43(4): 565–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pronin, E., Lin, D., & Ross, L. 2002. “The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self and versus Others,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28(3): 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranalli, C. & Thirza, L. 2022a. “Deep Disagreement (Part 1): Theories of Deep Disagreement,” Philosophy Compass 17(12): e12886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ranalli, C. & Thirza, L. 2022b. “Deep Disagreement (Part 2): Epistemology of Deep Disagreement,” Philosophy Compass 17(12): e12887.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., Wilson, D., Coral, A., Murphy, A., & Verow, P. 1999. “Variation between Experienced Observers in the Interpretation of Accident and Emergency Radiographs,” British Journal of Radiology 72(856): 323–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, L., Ehrlinger, J., & Gilovich, T. 2016. “The Bias Blind Spot and Its Implications.” In Elsbach, K., Kayes, A., & Kayes, D. (eds.), Contemporary Organizational Behavior, 137–145. Pearson.Google Scholar
Ross, L. & Ward, A. 1996. “Naive Realism in Everyday Life: Implications for Social Conflict and Misunderstanding.” In Reed, E., Turiel, E., & Brown, T. (eds.), The Jean Piaget Symposium Series, 103–135. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schafer, K. 2015. “How Common Is Peer Disagreement? On Self-Trust and Rational Symmetry,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 91(1): 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G., & Jordan, A. 2008. “Disgust as Embodied Moral Judgment,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34(8): 1096–1109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnider, A. 2018. The Confabulating Mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schoenfield, M. 2014. “Permission to Believe: Why Permissivism Is True and What It Tells Us about Irrelevant Influences on Belief,” Noûs 48(2): 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenfield, M. 2019. “Permissivism and the Value of Rationality: A Challenge to the Uniqueness Thesis,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 99(2): 286–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, E., Cokely, E., & Feltz, A. 2011. “Persistent Bias in Expert Judgments about Free Will and Moral Responsibility: A Test of the Expertise Defense,” Consciousness and Cognition 20(4): 1722–1731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwitzgebel, E. 2011. Perplexities of Consciousness. The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwitzgebel, E. & Cushman, F. 2012. “Expertise in Moral Reasoning? Order Effects on Moral Judgments in Professional Philosophers and Non-philosophers,” Mind & Language 27(2): 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwitzgebel, E. & Cushman, F. 2015. “Philosophers’ Biased Judgments Persist despite Training, Expertise and Reflection,” Cognition 141: 127–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scopelliti, I., Morewedge, C., McCormick, E. et al. 2015. “Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences,” Management Science 61(10): 2468–2486.Google Scholar
Sherman, B. 2015. “Questionable Peers and Spinelessness,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 45(4): 425–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidgwick, H. 1874. The Methods of Ethics. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, H. 1895. “The Philosophy of Common Sense,” Mind 4(14): 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidgwick, H. 1905. Apendix to “Criteria of Truth and Error.” In Sidgwick, H. (ed.), Lectures on the Philosophy of Kant and Other Philosophical Lectures and Essays, 461–467. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. 2010. “The Epistemology of Disagreement.” In Haddock, A., Millar, A., & Pritchard, D. (eds.), Social Epistemology, 278–297. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. 2021. The Bias that Divides Us. The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobia, K., Buckwalter, W., & Stich, S. 2013. “Moral Intuitions: Are Philosophers Experts?” Philosophical Psychology 26(5): 629–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobia, K., Chapman, G., & Stich, S. 2013. “Cleanliness Is Next to Morality, Even for Philosophers,” Journal of Consciousness Studies 20(11–12): 195–204.Google Scholar
Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A., Goren, A., & Hall, C. 2005. “Inferences of Competence from Faces Predict Election Outcomes,” Science 308(5728): 1623–1626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ulery, B., Hicklin, R., Buscaglia, J., & Roberts, M. 2012. “Repeatability and Reproducibility of Decisions by Latent Fingerprint Examiners,” PLoS One 7(2): e32800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaesen, K., Peterson, M., & van Bezooijen, B. 2013. “The Reliability of Armchair Intuitions,” Metaphilosophy 44(5): 559–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Inwagen, P. 1996. “It Is Wrong, Everywhere, Always, and for Anyone, to Believe Anything upon Insufficient Evidence.” In Jordan, J. & Howard-Snyder, D. (eds.), Faith, Freedom, and Rationality, 137–153. Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, P. 2010. “We’re Right. They’re Wrong.” In Feldman & Warfield 2010, 10–28.Google Scholar
Walker, M. 2023. Outlines of Skeptical-Dogmatism. Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Weatherson, B. 2013. “Disagreements, Philosophical and Otherwise.” In Christensen & Lackey 2013, 54–73.Google Scholar
Weatherson, B. 2019. Normative Externalism. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedgwood, R. 2007. The Nature of Normativity. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedgwood, R. 2010. “The Moral Evil Demons.” In Feldman & Warfield 2010, 216–246.Google Scholar
West, K. & Eaton, A. 2019. “Prejudiced and Unaware of It: Evidence for the Dunning-Kruger Model in the Domains of Racism and Sexism,” Personality and Individual Differences 146: 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, R., Meserve, R., & Stanovich, K. 2012. “Cognitive Sophistication Does Not Attenuate the Bias Blind Spot,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103(3): 506–519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wheatley, T. 2009. “Everyday Confabulation.” In Hirstein, W. (ed.), Confabulation, 203–221. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheatley, T. & Haidt, J. 2005. “Hypnotically Induced Disgust Makes Moral Judgments More Severe,” Psychological Science 16(10): 780–784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, R. 2005. “Epistemic Permissiveness,” Philosophical Perspectives 19: 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. 2014. “Evidence Cannot Be Permissive.” In Steup, M., Turri, J., & Sosa, E. (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, 312–323. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Williams, M. 2004. “The Agrippan Argument and Two Forms of Skepticism.” In Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (ed.), Pyrrhonian Skepticism, 121–145. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, T. 2002. Strangers to Ourselves. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. & Brekke, N. 1994. “Mental Contamination and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluations,” Psychological Bulletin 116(1): 117–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, T. & Nisbett, R. 1978. “The Accuracy of Verbal Reports about the Effects of Stimuli on Evaluations and Behavior,” Social Psychology 41(2): 118–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1969. On Certainty. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Disagreement
  • Diego E. Machuca, National Council for Scientific and Technical Research
  • Online ISBN: 9781009324458
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Disagreement
  • Diego E. Machuca, National Council for Scientific and Technical Research
  • Online ISBN: 9781009324458
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Disagreement
  • Diego E. Machuca, National Council for Scientific and Technical Research
  • Online ISBN: 9781009324458
Available formats
×