In the face of disagreement with an epistemic peer, David Christensen argues for the conciliatory response he calls Independence, in his paper Disagreement, Question-Begging, and Epistemic Self-Criticism. I will first explain Christensen’s Independence Principle about conciliation. I will then present his argument for how it avoids counterintuitive results in cases of super-high confidence and cases of disagreement over basic cognitive resources. I will argue that Christensen’s Independence Principle cannot avoid counterintuitive results without asserting a contradiction. I will specifically focus on his “cognitively altering pill case” to show that, with respect to the Independence Principle, the perception of one’s self is sometimes more reliable than the perception of one’s opponent. Yet at other times perception of one’s opponent is more reliable than perception of one’s self. If this is the case, then I will show that there is no asymmetry in special cases, and so the Independence Principle fails to avoid counterintuitive results in special disagreements. Like Thomas Kelly, Christensen defines epistemic peers as being both equally familiar with the evidence and questions surrounding the argument, and equals with respect to epistemic virtues such as intelligence (1). Conciliatory views argue that the correct response to a disagreement with a peer is to revise one’s argument and lower confidence where necessary (1). Christensen’s argument for his conciliatory view develops with his examination of the significance of accommodating, either yourself or your opponent making a cognitive error, as rational evidence (1). He argues that the correct response to disagreement is to take a third person view of both yours and your opponen... ... middle of paper ... ... is still your peer, and that they disagree with you about everything, it seems wrong to rely on your intuition about your psychological report only because they disagree with you about many things. Indeed, it seems wrong to claim that in special cases we should suddenly accept agent-specific evidence as epistemically rational, just because if we did not we would end up in skepticism. The symmetry is not broken in the disagreement, we are unable to keep confidence in our positions, unable to regard agent-specific evidence as epistemically rational, and unable to avoid skepticism. Therefore, in super-high confidence cases, or disagreement over basic cognitive resources, Independence fails to avoid counterintuitive results. Works Cited (1) Christensen, David. "Disagreement, Question-Begging, and Epistemic Self-Criticism." Philosophers' Imprint 11.6 (2011): 1-18.
The chapter I will be summarizing is Chapter 23 from the Advanced Agreement section of “Thank you for Arguing” by Jay Heinrichs. In this chapter, the author focuses on describing Cicero’s five cannons of persuasion: invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery. He explains that these were purposely placed in this logical order because, “First, invent what you intend to say. Then decide what order you want to say it in; determine how you’ll style it to suit your particular audience; put it all down in your brain or on your computer; and finally get up and wow your audience.” Throughout the whole chapter, he in detail, describes how to structure and write a persuasive speech using these cannons of persuasion. The first cannon of persuasion
John Greco in, The Nature of Ability and the Purpose of Knowledge, argues that, “...knowledge is a true belief grounded in intellectual ability” (Greco 1). Now, this is categorically a 'virtue reliabilist' or more specifically, an 'agent reliabilist' claim. The purpose of this paper to analyze Greco's virtue reliablism. Moreover, to articulate one strong objection to Greco's view and to argue that Greco's defense of virtue reliablism fails. Specifically, the argument will be made that the newly instantiated 'Sea Race Objection' example effectively refutes Greco's version of virtue reliablism.
Kelly defines epistemic peers as two people that have an equal familiarity with the evidence and questions surrounding an argument (Kelly, 2005 Pg.10 ). Epistemic peers must also be equals with respect to epistemic virtues like intelligence (Kelly, 2005 Pg. 10). Kelly suggests that there is no significance in someone merely disagreeing with you that would entail that you los...
ABSTRACT: The attempt to hold both anti-individualism and privileged self-knowledge may have the absurd consequence that someone could know a priori propositions that are knowable only empirically. This would be so if such an attempt entailed that one could know a priori both the contents of one’s own thoughts and the anti-individualistic entailments from those thought-contents to the world. For then one could also come to know a priori (by simple deduction) the empirical conditions entailed by one’s thoughts. But I argue that there is no construal of a priori knowledge that could be used to raise an incompatibility problem of this sort. First, I suggest that the incompatibilist a priori must be a stipulative one, since in none of the main philosophical traditions does knowledge of the contents of one’s thoughts count as a priori. Then, I show that under various possible construals of a priori, the incompatibilist argument would be invalid: either a fallacy of equivocation or an argument without a plausible closure principle guaranteeing transmission of epistemic status from premises to conclusion. Finally, I maintain that the only possible construal of the property of being knowable a priori that avoids invalidity is one that fails to generate the intended reductio.
.... For argument is not about who is right, but what is learned as a
Crusius, Timothy W., and Carolyn E. Channell. The Aims of Argument: A Text and Reader. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.
The approaches given by Pierce and Nagel to the epistemological questions of doubt and belief, though diverse in that they are strictly pragmatist and Cartesian, contain a similar underlying principle. They both serve to show that belief cannot come from any source that appeals to one’s feelings or purposes, experiences or impressions. Beliefs must arise from a non-personal means. Although this is a commonality between the two approaches in epistemology, they are greatly different arguments in their focuses. Pierce’s pragmatist approach surfaces along the lines of techniques people use to found their beliefs of reality, here assuming reality from the start, and using that as a foundation to delve into questions of the unknown. Nagel’s look at the Cartesian approach primarily doubts reality, and uses that as the grounds for the rest of his argument, asking how we can know anything beyond ourselves. These approaches lead to very different views on epistemology.
The author Vincent Ruggiero defines critical thinking in his book Beyond Feelings: A Guide to Critical Thinking, as a “search for answers, a quest.” It is the idea that one does not accept claims, ideas, and arguments blindly, but questions and researches these things before making a decision on them. From what I learned in class, critical thinking is the concept of accepting that there are other people and cultures in this world that may have different opinions. It is being able to react rationally to these different opinions.
The epistemological concept questions “how do I know?” The epistemological dimension is how we view the assumptions of knowledge to decide what to believe (Marcia, 2008, p2). The way in which information is delivered affects how it perceived by those who receive the information. Intrapersonal dimension is how we chose and adopt the values and beliefs that we decide to live by (Marcia, 2008, p8). For example, as a student in the first phase of self-authorship, I seek my values and beliefs according to seeking acceptance from those around me, while others who may be further down the process chose their values and beliefs according to who they are. Interpersonal dimensions is the connection between yourself and with others (Marcia, 2008, p9). It is the understanding of others views and developing a mature and respectful way to interact with everyone. “Complex epistemological, intrapersonal, and interpersonal development is necessary for adults to build complex belief systems, to form a coherent sense of identity, and to develop authentic, mature relations with diverse others (Baxter Magolda, 2001).” Within this course, I believe that we have learned a bit of all of three dimensions. Reading the
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It is mainly concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question of what distinguishes true or adequate knowledge from otherwise false or inadequate knowledge (Heylighen). The major branches of epistemological theory are rationalism, empiricism and mysticism. Rationalism implies that knowledge is obtained through reason and introspection. Ones ideas are justified by sense experience, but if the senses and intuition are in conflict, the sensory evidence must be discarded. In empiricism, knowledge is obtained through observation and experiment. Models and theories may be used to organize this sensory experience, but if theories contradict experience they are wrong. In mysticism, knowledge is obtained through faith, emotions or revelation but if observation or intuition contradict, the knowledge is thus deemed wrong (“Rationalism”). Doubt, as a Persian Proverb once said, is the key to knowledge. It is one of the influencing factors in the expansion of knowledge. A fact that is conside...
To respond to this shortcoming of consciousness, some might attempt to find an absolute absolved from one-sidedness, from sheer relativity to the knowing subject. Others will not respond this way, however, instead spinning off into apathy, subjectivism, or nihilism (59). Those who do attempt to find an objective truth most often turn to science. Some have suggested that the intellect is an ...
Carl Sagan's The Fine Art of Baloney Detection depicts the importance of thinking skeptically before new ideas can be accepted (Sagan, 1997). Skeptical thinking pertains to our ability to distinguish what is true from what is false in some sort of logical argument or idea. Sagan promotes nine tools for this type of thinking, six of which I believe are the most useful will be discussed throughout this essay.
The purpose of this reflective essay on the debate is to analyse my team and my own personal learning style and experience of participating in the debate and in the preparation period - that started in week 7 with the mock debate - by structured and based on Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles theory, and examine some ideas for my future practice.
Epistemology helped me investigate the procedure I went through for crafting the essays. I referred to books, online articles, journal and other publications to understand and justify the concepts and information. It helped me distinguish between what is false, what is true across diverse contexts, and to decide the boundaries of knowledge based on how that knowledge is acquired. I also evaluated the truthfulness of my beliefs and personal opinion. I am actuated by understanding the sources of knowledge and also the quality of the resulting knowledge – knowing its dimensions and limitations.
Mill presents one possible criticism of this view. He writes that it could be asked whether it is essential for "true knowledge" for some people to hold erroneous opinions. Mill replies that having an increasing number of uncontested opinions is both "inevitable and indispensable" in the process of human improvement. However, this does not mean that the loss of debate is not a drawback, and he encourages teachers to try to compensate for the loss of dissent.