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.


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


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


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

  • October 30 : Memory and the Self
    Ever since John Locke, philosophers have wondered about memory and its connection to the self. Locke believed that a continuity of consciousness and...
  • November 6 : Election Special 2016
    John and Ken look beyond the horse race at some of the bigger questions raised by this year’s campaign: • Do we always have a duty...
  • November 13 : The Legacy of Freud
    Did you really want to eat that last piece of cake, or were you secretly thinking about your mother? Sigmund Freud, who might have suggested the...
  • November 20 : Acting Together
    Many goals are too complex for one person to accomplish alone. Every day, we pool together our planning abilities with those around us to get things...
  • November 27 : Science and Gender
    What does gender have to do with science? The obvious answer is ‘nothing.’ Science is the epitome of an objective, rational, and disinterested...

Support Philosophy Talk


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!