In this paper, we investigate various possible (Bayesian) precisifications of the (somewhat vague) statements of “the equal weight view ” (EWV) that have appeared in the recent literature on disagreement. We will show that the renditions of (EWV) that immediately suggest themselves are untenable from a Bayesian point of view. In the end, we will propose some tenable (but not necessarily desirable) interpretations of (EWV). Our aim here will not be to defend any particular Bayesian precisification of (EWV), but rather to raise awareness about some of the difficulties inherent in formulating such precisifications. 1
In this paper, I argue that the two most common views of how to respond rationally to peer disagreem...
This note argues that a representation of the epistemic state of the individual through a non-additi...
The Equal Weight View is a view about the epistemic significance of disagreement that is thought to ...
The proportional weight view in epistemology of disagreement generalizes the equal weight view and p...
Much of the literature on the epistemology of disagreement focuses on the rational responses to disa...
How should we respond to cases of disagreement where two epistemic agents have the same evidence but...
Three prominent views in the epistemology of disagreement: I Equal weight view: I should assign as m...
This paper investigates Elga’s (2007) Equal Weight View (EWV) and its consequences when understood a...
Some philosophers believe that when epistemic peers disagree, each has an obligation to accord the o...
In this paper Stewart Cohen defends the equal weight view (EWV) against objections coming mainly fro...
Dawid, DeGroot and Mortera showed, a quarter century ago, that any agent who regards a fellow agent ...
The equal weight view says that if you discover that you disagree with a peer, you should decrease y...
Suppose two agents, S1 and S2, are epistemic peers regarding a propo-sition p: that is, suppose S1 a...
In this article, we argue for the general importance of normative theories of argument strength. We ...
In this article, we argue for the general importance of normative theories of argument strength. We ...
In this paper, I argue that the two most common views of how to respond rationally to peer disagreem...
This note argues that a representation of the epistemic state of the individual through a non-additi...
The Equal Weight View is a view about the epistemic significance of disagreement that is thought to ...
The proportional weight view in epistemology of disagreement generalizes the equal weight view and p...
Much of the literature on the epistemology of disagreement focuses on the rational responses to disa...
How should we respond to cases of disagreement where two epistemic agents have the same evidence but...
Three prominent views in the epistemology of disagreement: I Equal weight view: I should assign as m...
This paper investigates Elga’s (2007) Equal Weight View (EWV) and its consequences when understood a...
Some philosophers believe that when epistemic peers disagree, each has an obligation to accord the o...
In this paper Stewart Cohen defends the equal weight view (EWV) against objections coming mainly fro...
Dawid, DeGroot and Mortera showed, a quarter century ago, that any agent who regards a fellow agent ...
The equal weight view says that if you discover that you disagree with a peer, you should decrease y...
Suppose two agents, S1 and S2, are epistemic peers regarding a propo-sition p: that is, suppose S1 a...
In this article, we argue for the general importance of normative theories of argument strength. We ...
In this article, we argue for the general importance of normative theories of argument strength. We ...
In this paper, I argue that the two most common views of how to respond rationally to peer disagreem...
This note argues that a representation of the epistemic state of the individual through a non-additi...
The Equal Weight View is a view about the epistemic significance of disagreement that is thought to ...