Introduction

Feldman, Richard M.; Warfield, Ted A.

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226078.003.0001

Cited by 43 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Secondly, another important feature of the ASP debate format is its probable suitability to deal with the disagreement (Feldman and Warfield 2010). The entire tournament, from the choice of topics to the concrete structure of matches, is designed to allow the participants to focus on oppositional argument (Prakken 1997), its merit and weakness as analysed through basic tenets of critical thinking such as the perspective, goal, assumptions as well as consequences and implications of argument on improving an intended situation.…”

Section: Special Features Of the Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Educate through Debate. The Project "A Suon di Parole"

Sommaggio¹,

Schiavon²,

Mazzocca³

2018

AJSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Special Features Of the Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Educate through Debate. The Project "A Suon di Parole"

Sommaggio¹,

Schiavon²,

Mazzocca³

2018

AJSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The philosophical study of disagreement is inspired by real-world examples, as when ‘Two expert weather forecasters disagree about the weekend forecast’ and ‘Two equally well-informed economists disagree about the most likely movements in interest rates’ (Feldman and Warfield 2010: 1). Such disagreements prompt many philosophical questions, such as when, if at all, is it epistemically reasonable, rational, or justifiable for the disagreeing parties to hold incompatible beliefs?…”

Section: An Argument By Example For the Philosophical Fecundity Of Cdrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Feldman and Warfield (2010) identify two commitments often made in the epistemology of disagreement that are idealizations, by our lights. (The sense in which the second commitment is an idealization is the technical sense found in philosophy of science, as in Frigg and Hartmann 2012; more details below.)…”

Section: An Argument By Example For the Philosophical Fecundity Of Cdrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(The sense in which the second commitment is an idealization is the technical sense found in philosophy of science, as in Frigg and Hartmann 2012; more details below.) We construe these commitments as follows: The disagreeing parties are (epistemic) peers , where ‘peers literally share all evidence and are equal with respect to their abilities and dispositions relevant to interpreting that evidence’ (Feldman and Warfield 2010: 2).The uniqueness thesis is true, according to which ‘a given body of evidence justifies exactly one attitude toward any particular proposition’ (2010: 6), or more fully, according to which, for any body of evidence e and proposition p , if each of S 1 ’s and S 2 ’s total evidence is e , then there is exactly one doxastic attitude (belief, disbelief, or suspension of judgment) that is rational, justified, or warranted for each of S 1 and S 2 to have toward p 2 …”

Section: An Argument By Example For the Philosophical Fecundity Of Cdrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The disagreeing parties are (epistemic) peers , where ‘peers literally share all evidence and are equal with respect to their abilities and dispositions relevant to interpreting that evidence’ (Feldman and Warfield 2010: 2).…”

Section: An Argument By Example For the Philosophical Fecundity Of Cdrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cross-Disciplinary Research as a Platform for Philosophical Research

Crowley

Gonnerman

O’Rourke

2016

J. of the Am. Philos. Assoc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:It is argued that core areas of philosophy can benefit from reflection on cross-disciplinary research (CDR). We start by giving a brief account of CDR, describing its variability and some of the ways in which philosophers can interact with it. We then provide an argument in principle for the conclusion that CDR is philosophically fecund, arguing that since CDR highlights fundamental differences among disciplinary research worldviews, it can be used to motivate new philosophical problems and supply new insights into old problems. We close by providing an argument by example that uses the epistemology of peer disagreement to establish the potential of CDR for core philosophical areas. With this argument, we aim to demonstrate how the complex research contexts that CDR affords can point the way toward important avenues of epistemological research by highlighting potential limitations of key epistemological components, such as peerage and uniqueness.

show abstract

Reliabilism: Holistic or Simple?

Dunn

2012

Episteme

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple versions of Reliabilism about justification say that S's believing that p is justified if and only if the belief was produced by a belief-forming process that is reliable above some high threshold. Alvin Goldman, in Epistemology and Cognition, argues for a more complex version of the view according to which it is total epistemic systems that are assessed for reliability, rather than individual processes. Why prefer this more complex version of Reliabilism? Two reasons suggest themselves. First, it seems that the interaction of various processes of belief formation is often important. The more complex version appears to account for the interaction of processes. Second, one might doubt whether individual processes will have determinate truth-ratios. If not, the simple version of Reliabilism is a nonstarter. In this paper I argue that, despite these two apparent advantages, the complex version of Reliabilism is untenable. I conclude by arguing that the simple version is actually fine as it is.

show abstract

Introduction

Cited by 43 publications

References 0 publications

Educate through Debate. The Project "A Suon di Parole"

Educate through Debate. The Project "A Suon di Parole"

Cross-Disciplinary Research as a Platform for Philosophical Research

Reliabilism: Holistic or Simple?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About