Acceso usuarios
Ruth Weintraub
According to conciliatory views about peer disagreement, both peers must accord their disagreeing peer some weight, and move (to some extent) towards him. Non-conciliatory views allow one peer, the one who responded correctly to the evidence, to remain steadfast. In this paper, I consider the suggestion that it may be rational for both disagreeing peers to hold steadfastly to their opinion. To this end, I contend with arguments adduced against the permissiveness the supposition involves, and identify some ways in which different responses for different agents to the evidence might be reasonable.
