In the case of the piano, there is probably nothing important to deal with differences of opinion. But in many cases, our differences are of great importance, both in public opinion and in our personal lives. You cannot argue with your spouse or partner about whether you live together, if you are getting married, where to live or how to raise your children. People who have political power do not agree on how to spend huge sums of money, on the laws to be passed or on the wars to be waged. If only we were better able to resolve our differences, we would probably save millions of lives and prevent millions more from living in poverty. Here are the questions of agreement/disagreement and conviction: Ken and John invite Jennifer Lackey, professor of philosophy at Northwestern University. Jennifer begins with the fact that people are inherently fallible in the pursuit of truth, which is why disagreement is helpful because it encourages individuals to re-examine and inform their beliefs. Next, Ken asks what to do if there is a disagreement, and Jennifer responds by saying that it depends on the specific case. The Check Case restaurant supports Defeat, since Christensen is less justified in learning his colleague`s faith in his faith. His decline in justification is perceived by the fact that he must reduce his confidence in order to be in a justified position on this issue.
Learning about differences gives it room for revision and a chance for epistemic improvement. In addition, the restaurant check case supports equal weight, because the reason Christensen thinks he`s wrong is pretty strong. As he should be as confident that the shares are $45 as $43, his reasons also support these claims. Taking into account equal peer opinions should generally understand the need to divide the difference between peer opinions, at least when both peers of opinion exhaust the evidence of opinions on the subject. Sharing difference is a kind of doxatic compromise that calls for peers to meet in the middle. Therefore, if a peer believes that a peer does not believe the S (a (P) and a peer, it would require equal weight for peer reviews if each peer suspends judgment on ” (P). Applied to the richer doxastic image, which contains degrees of belief if a peer like 0.7 degree of conviction that ” (P)and the other has a 0.3 degree of belief that,(P), which give peer opinions equal, for each peer 0.5 degrees believe that . (P) was accepted. It is important to note that what is “divided” is not the content of the relevant proposals. For example, sharing the difference in the check-restaurant case does not require the belief that the shares are $44. Perhaps it is obvious that the shares are not an equal amount. The difference is only divided with respect to the different doxastic parameters compared to a single set (the contested target rate).
The content of the proposals that the parties believe is not the place where the compromise arises. Finally, the restaurant supports check case independence. The reasons Christensen might reject his colleague`s belief in the shares might be that he had a little too much to drink tonight, that he is particularly tired, that Christensen checked doubly, but his friend did not, etc., but could not include that the shares are actually 43 dollars, that Christensen does not agree, etc.