This book brings together philosophers to investigate the nature and normativity of group disagreement. Debates in the epistemology of disagreement have mainly been concerned with idealized cases of peer disagreement between individuals. However, most real-life disagreements are complex and often take place within and between groups. Ascribing views, beliefs, and judgments to groups is a common phenomenon that is well researched in the literature on the ontology and epistemology of groups. The chapters in this volume seek to connect these literatures and to explore both intra- and inter- group disagreements. They apply their discussions to a range of political, religious, social, and scientific issues. The Epistemology of Group Disagreement...
This paper is a contribution to the development of an ontology of conflict. In particular, we single...
This article is about the implications of a conciliatory view about the epistemology of peer disagre...
While puzzles concerning the epistemic significance of disagreement are typically motivated by looki...
The topic of this volume—theepistemology of group disagreement—aims to face the complex topic of gro...
This is an introduction to the volume The Epistemology of Group Disagreement (Routledge, forthcoming...
This is a collective study of the epistemic significance of disagreement: twelve contributors explor...
Much recent discussion in social epistemology has focussed on the question of whether peers can rati...
What should you do when you find out that someone firmly disagrees with you on some claim P? How muc...
This paper proposes a methodological turn for the epistemology of disagreement, away from focusing o...
This chapter covers contemporary work on disagreement, detailing both the conceptual and normative i...
The debate on the epistemology of disagreement has so far focused almost exclusively on cases of dis...
I will consider disagreement from a communal perspective. Thus, my focus will not primarily be on di...
This work aims to investigate the consequences of disagreement between experts on the epistemic perf...
Table of contents: Anna-Maria Asunta Eder (Northeastern University) - Equal Weight and Respect f...
Thesis advisor: Daniel J. McKaughanWhen you learn that you disagree with an epistemic peer, what sho...
This paper is a contribution to the development of an ontology of conflict. In particular, we single...
This article is about the implications of a conciliatory view about the epistemology of peer disagre...
While puzzles concerning the epistemic significance of disagreement are typically motivated by looki...
The topic of this volume—theepistemology of group disagreement—aims to face the complex topic of gro...
This is an introduction to the volume The Epistemology of Group Disagreement (Routledge, forthcoming...
This is a collective study of the epistemic significance of disagreement: twelve contributors explor...
Much recent discussion in social epistemology has focussed on the question of whether peers can rati...
What should you do when you find out that someone firmly disagrees with you on some claim P? How muc...
This paper proposes a methodological turn for the epistemology of disagreement, away from focusing o...
This chapter covers contemporary work on disagreement, detailing both the conceptual and normative i...
The debate on the epistemology of disagreement has so far focused almost exclusively on cases of dis...
I will consider disagreement from a communal perspective. Thus, my focus will not primarily be on di...
This work aims to investigate the consequences of disagreement between experts on the epistemic perf...
Table of contents: Anna-Maria Asunta Eder (Northeastern University) - Equal Weight and Respect f...
Thesis advisor: Daniel J. McKaughanWhen you learn that you disagree with an epistemic peer, what sho...
This paper is a contribution to the development of an ontology of conflict. In particular, we single...
This article is about the implications of a conciliatory view about the epistemology of peer disagre...
While puzzles concerning the epistemic significance of disagreement are typically motivated by looki...