Show

Disagreement

Week of: 
December 5, 2010
What is it: 

Sometimes people who seem to be your epistemic peers – that is, people as experienced, as well trained, as thoughtful, and as intelligent as you – disagree with you.  Should this shake your confidence in your own beliefs?  When, how much, and under what conditions?  Ken and John search for common ground with Jennifer Lackey from Northwestern University, author of Learning From Words: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge.

Listening Notes: 

It seems like two reasonable, intelligent people who have access to the same evidence should come to the same conclusion. So why is it that this is so often not the case, and that people are often confident in entirely opposite conclusions? John and Ken start off the show by honing in on what they aren’t going to discuss. John and Ken have opposite opinions on the taste of lima beans, for example, but this doesn’t constitute a real disagreement because there is no incompatibility between one person liking lima beans and another person despising them. Rather, disagreement of the relevant kind concerns factual matters. John wonders if there isn’t some inevitable amount of arrogance in belief formation; he has no choice but to develop beliefs based on his own evidence and his own reasoning after all. Ken says that others’ beliefs, and the fact that there is disagreement in the first place, should give you further evidence about the question at hand.

Ken and John invite Jennifer Lackey, Professor of Philosophy at Northwestern University, to the conversation. Jennifer starts by saying that people are inherently fallible at tracking truth, so disagreement is useful because it encourages individuals to re-examine and re-inform their beliefs. Next, Ken asks what should be done in cases of disagreement, and Jennifer responds by remarking that it’s dependent on the specific case.

The conversation moves towards a discussion about who can be said to be an “epistemic peer,” someone who is similar in reasoning ability and access to evidence to another. One of the criteria for considering someone as such, Jennifer claims, is a motivation to discover the truth. However, a phone caller points out that even if someone is not your epistemic peer, you may still be unable to dismiss their belief if its result affects you. Ken wonders if there may be a dark side to the idea of assigning epistemic peers. Can’t you simply insulate your beliefs by ruling out others as epistemic peers? Jennifer agrees; a religious person, for example, may not view a non-religious person as being privy to the same evidence, and therefore not qualified for consideration as an epistemic peer.

In the latter portion of the show, the focus shifts to political and religious disagreements. Jennifer also teases apart the difference between a practical belief and a epistemically rational one. She concludes by saying that by using disagreement as an opportunity to reconsider and adjust accordingly, we can avoid being both spineless and dogmatic in our beliefs.

  • Roving Philosophical Reporter (Seek to 5:44): Listeners are offered a glimpse into the lives of Joe and Carol McLaughlin, a married couple from San Francisco with fundamentally different political beliefs. They describe the strategies they employ to deal peacefully with their differences. 
  • 60-Second Philosopher (Seek to 48:41): Ian Shoales shares with listeners his personal opinions on a range of topics, from zombie movies to Vietnam, and the disagreements with others that these have sparked. He concludes by scorning the idea of “agreeing to disagree” as nothing more than a passive-aggressive form of simple disagreement. 

 

Jennifer Lackey, Professor of Philosphy, Northwestern University

Related Resources: 

Web Resources

Avlon, John (2012). “Hyper-partisanship dragging down nation.” CNN Opinion.

Ball, Aimee Lee (2010). “Hand-Holding Across the Aisle.” New York Times.

Cohen, Randy (2009). “Can We Talk About Religion, Please?New York Times: Moral of the Story.

Enoch, David (2010). “Not Just a Truthometer: Taking Oneself Seriously (but not Too Seriously) in Cases of Peer Disagreement.” Oxford Journals: Mind.

Goldman, Alvin (2006). “Social Epistemology.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Hookway, Chris (2008). “Pragmatism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Books

Feldman, Richard, and Ted A. Farfield, eds (2010). Disagreement. ISBN: 0199226083.

Goldman, Alvin, and Dennis Whitcomb, eds (2011). Social Epistemology: Essential Readings. ISBN: 0195334612.

Haidt, Jonathan (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. ISBN: 0307377903.

Lackey, Jennifer (2010). Learning from Words: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge. ISBN: 0199575614.

Morse, JSB (2009). Everyone Agrees: Book 1: Words, Ideas, and a Universal Morality. ISBN: 1600200443. 

Get Philosophy Talk

Radio

Sunday at 10am (pacific) on KALW 91.7 FM Local Public Radio, San Francisco

Podcast

Individual downloads via CDBaby and iTunes. Multipacks and The Complete Philosophy Talk via iAamplify

John Perry and Ken Taylor

Continue the Conversation

Sidebar Menu

Upcoming Shows

  • February 14 : White Privilege and Racial Injustice
    “White privilege” has become a buzzword in discussions about racial inequality and racial justice. The call to “check your privilege” appeals to...
  • February 21 : Finding Meaning in a Material World
    All there is in the world is physical stuff. That is the fundamental assumption of the materialist standpoint, and the picture given to us by science...
  • February 28 : The Ethics of Debt
    According to a report from the Jubilee Debt Campaign, there are currently 24 countries facing a full-blown debt crisis, with 14 more on the verge....
  • March 6 : Simone de Beauvoir
    Simone de Beauvoir is often cast as only a novelist or a mere echo of Jean-Paul Sartre. But she authored many philosophical texts beyond The Second...
  • March 13 : The Ancient Cosmos: When the Earth Stood Still
    Even in ancient Greek society, philosopher-scientists engaged in heated debate about the origin, composition, and structure of our universe. Tracking...

Support Philosophy Talk

DONATE TODAY

Philosophy Talk relies on the support of listeners like you to stay on the air and online. Any contribution, large or small, helps us produce intelligent, reflective radio that questions everything, including our most deeply-held beliefs about science, morality, culture, and the human condition. Make your tax-deductible contribution now through Stanford University's secure online donation page. Thank you for your support, and thank you for thinking!