The epistemic account of faultless disagreement

Synthese 197 (6):2613-2630 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

There seem to be cases where A believes p, and B believes not-p, but neither makes a mistake. This is known as faultless disagreement. According to the epistemic account, in at least some cases of faultless disagreement either A or B must believe something false, and the disagreement is faultless in the sense that each follows the epistemic norm. Recently, philosophers have raised various objections to this account. In this paper, I propose a new version of the epistemic account and show how it can handle those objections.

Similar books and articles

Relativism and Faultless Disagreement.Richard Hou & Linton Wang - 2013 - Philosophia 41 (1):203-216.
Disagreement Without Error.Torfinn Thomesen Huvenes - 2014 - Erkenntnis 79 (S1):143-154.
Faultless Moral Disagreement.Alison Hills - 2013 - Ratio 26 (4):410-427.
Faultless Disagreement.Max Kolbel - 2004 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104 (1):53-73.
How to Respond to Borderline Cases.Dan López de Sa - 2010 - In Sebastiano Moruzzi & Richard Dietz (eds.), Cuts and Clouds. Oxford University Press.
An Absolutist Theory of Faultless Disagreement in Aesthetics.Carl Baker & Jon Robson - 2017 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 98 (3):429-448.
Absolutely tasty: an examination of predicates of personal taste and faultless disagreement.Jeremy Wyatt - 2018 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 61 (3):252-280.
The Semantic Significance of Faultless Disagreement.Michele Palmira - 2014 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 96 (3):349-371.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-06-11

Downloads
562 (#32,111)

6 months
136 (#26,828)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Xingming Hu
NanJing University

References found in this work

Vagueness.Timothy Williamson - 1996 - New York: Routledge.
The emotional construction of morals.Jesse J. Prinz - 2007 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Vagueness.Timothy Williamson - 1995 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (4):589-601.

View all 30 references / Add more references