Abstract
This article brings together two sets of data that are rarely discussed
in concert; namely, disagreement and testimony data. I will argue that
relativism yields a much more elegant account of these data than its major
rival, contextualism. The basic idea will be that contextualists can account
for disagreement data only by adopting principles that preclude a simple
account of testimony data. I will conclude that, other things being equal,
we should prefer relativism to contextualism. In making this comparative
point, I will also defend self-standing relativist accounts of disagreement and
testimony data.