Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:34:31.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conciliationism and the Menace of Scepticism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2015

DIEGO E. MACHUCA
DIEGO E. MACHUCA*
Affiliation:
CONICET (Argentina)
*
*<[email protected]>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is sometimes claimed that conciliatory views on disagreement ultimately lead to either global or widespread scepticism. This is deemed to be a real problem for conciliationism either because scepticism of either kind is patently untenable or because it poses a serious threat to our intellectual and social lives. In this paper, I first argue that the alleged untenability of both types of scepticism is far from obvious and should therefore be established rather than taken for granted. Then, I show that those who reject both types of scepticism because of the threat they pose surprisingly confuse pragmatic reasons with epistemic reasons.

On dit parfois que les positions conciliationistes sur le désaccord aboutissent à un scepticisme soit global soit étendu. Ceci est considéré comme un réel problème pour le conciliationisme, soit parce que ces deux types de scepticisme sont manifestement insoutenables, soit parce qu’ils constituent une menace sérieuse pour nos vies intellectuelle et sociale. Dans cet article, je montre d’abord que le caractère prétendument insoutenable de ces deux types de scepticisme est loin d’être évident et devrait donc être démontré au lieu d’être simplement présupposé. Je montre ensuite que ceux qui rejettent ces deux types de scepticisme à cause de la menace qu’ils représentent confondent de manière étonnante raisons pragmatiques et raisons épistémiques.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 469 - 488
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2015 

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

Christensen, David 2007 “Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News,” Philosophical Review 116: 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, David 2009 “Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy,” Philosophy Compass 4: 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, David 2011 “Disagreement, Question-Begging and Epistemic Self-Criticism,” Philosophers’ Imprint 11/6: 1–22.Google Scholar
Conee, Ernest & Feldman, Richard 2004 Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elga, Adam 2007 “Reflection and Disagreement,” Noûs 41: 478–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enoch, David 2010 “Not Just a Truthomether: Taking Oneself Seriously (but not Too Seriously) in Cases of Peer Disagreement,” Mind 119: 953–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Richard 2006 “Epistemological Puzzles about Disagreement.” In Hetherington, S. (ed.), Epistemology Futures, 216–236. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard 2007 “Reasonable Religious Disagreements.” In Antony, L. (ed.), Philosophers without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life, 194–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Richard 2009 “Evidentialism, Higher-Order Evidence, and Disagreement,” Episteme 6: 294–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Sanford 2009 “Reliabilism in Philosophy,” Philosophical Studies 142: 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Sanford 2013a “Defending Philosophy in the Face of Systematic Disagreement.” In Machuca, D. (ed.), Disagreement and Skepticism, 277–294. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Sanford 2013b “Disagreement, Defeat, and Assertion.” In Christensen, D. & Lackey, J. (eds.), The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, 167–189. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, John 2000 Putting Skeptics in Their Place. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grellard, Christophe 2004 “Comment peut-on se fier à l’expérience? Esquisse d’une typologie des réponses médiévales au problème sceptique,” Quaestio 4: 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grellard, Christophe 2007 “Scepticism, Demonstration and the Infinite Regress Argument (Nicholas of Autrecourt and John Buridan),” Vivarium 45: 328–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Thomas 2005 “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement,” Oxford Studies in Epistemology 1: 167–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Thomas 2010 “Peer Disagreement and Higher-Order Evidence.” In Feldman, R. & Warfield, T. (eds.), Disagreement, 111–174. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Nathan 2012 “Disagreement: What’s the Problem? or A Good Peer is Hard to Find,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85: 249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Nathan 2013 “Disagreement: The Skeptical Arguments from Peerhood and Symmetry.” In Machuca, D. (ed.), Disagreement and Skepticism, 193–217. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kornblith, Hilary 2010 “Belief in the Face of Controversy.” In Feldman, R. & Warfield, T. (eds.), Disagreement, 29–52. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Michael 2012 In Praise of Reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machuca, Diego 2006 “The Pyrrhonist’s ἀταραξία and φιλανθρωπία,” Ancient Philosophy 26: 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machuca, Diego 2011 “Pyrrhonism and the Law of Non-Contradiction.” In Machuca, D. (ed.), Pyrrhonism in Ancient, Modern, and Contemporary Philosophy, 51–77. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Machuca, Diego 2013a “Pyrrhonism, Inquiry, and Rationality,” Elenchos 34: 201–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machuca, Diego 2013b Review of Lynch 2012, Philosophy in Review 33: 308–311.Google Scholar
Machuca, Diego 2013c “Editor’s Introduction.” In Machuca, D. (ed.), Disagreement and Skepticism, 1–23. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machuca, Diego Unpublished “A Neo-Pyrrhonian Response to the Disagreeing about Disagreement Argument.”Google Scholar
Matheson, Jonathan 2009 “Conciliatory Views of Disagreement and Higher-Order Evidence,” Episteme 6: 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perler, Dominik 2010 “Skepticism.” In Pasnau, R. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy, 384–396. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin 2000 “Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism.” In Meeker, K. and Quinn, P. (eds.), The Philosophical Challenge of Religious Diversity, 172–192. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, Ernest 2010 “The Epistemology of Disagreement.” In Haddock, A., Millar, A., & Pritchard, D. (eds.), Social Epistemology, 278–297. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thune, Michael 2010 “‘Partial Defeaters’ and the Epistemology of Disagreement,” The Philosophical Quarterly 60: 355–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Inwagen, Peter 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. London: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, Peter 2010 “We’re Right. They’re Wrong.” In Feldman, R. & Warfield, T. (eds.), Disagreement, 10–28. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar