Conciliationism

Definition

Conciliationism is the epistemological view that, when faced with peer disagreement, one should adjust their beliefs in response to the disagreement. This approach emphasizes the importance of considering the evidence and reasoning of equally informed and rational individuals, suggesting that if a peer disagrees, it might indicate that one’s own belief is not as justified as previously thought. This perspective plays a significant role in understanding how disagreement among peers affects knowledge claims and belief formation.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Conciliationism argues that individuals should not maintain their beliefs in the face of peer disagreement without considering the evidence and reasoning of others.
2. This view suggests that adjusting beliefs based on peer disagreement promotes a more rational approach to belief formation and knowledge acquisition.
3. Conciliationism contrasts with other views like steadfastness, which maintains that one can justifiably hold onto their beliefs despite peer disagreement.
4. The theory emphasizes the social dimension of knowledge, illustrating how our understanding can be influenced by interactions with others who have different perspectives.
5. Conciliationists often face challenges regarding how to determine who counts as a peer and what constitutes sufficient grounds for adjusting one's beliefs.

Review Questions

• How does conciliationism address the issue of epistemic peer disagreement, and what implications does it have for belief justification?
  • Conciliationism addresses epistemic peer disagreement by asserting that when equally informed individuals disagree, it is rational to reconsider one's own beliefs. This perspective implies that belief justification is not solely an individual affair but also involves an acknowledgment of others' viewpoints. By recognizing that peers may have valid reasons for their differing beliefs, conciliationism encourages individuals to remain open to adjusting their views, thereby enhancing the rationality of belief formation.
• Compare conciliationism with steadfastness in terms of how they respond to peer disagreement and their respective philosophical implications.
  • Conciliationism and steadfastness represent opposing approaches to peer disagreement. While conciliationism advocates for adjusting one’s beliefs in light of a peer's disagreement, steadfastness maintains that individuals can justifiably hold onto their beliefs regardless of contrary opinions from peers. The implications of conciliationism suggest a more communal understanding of knowledge, where the perspectives of others are integral to belief evaluation. In contrast, steadfastness emphasizes personal conviction and the independence of one's epistemic stance.
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of conciliationism in navigating complex cases of peer disagreement, particularly in contentious fields such as ethics or politics.
  • Conciliationism has strengths in promoting a collaborative and reflective approach to knowledge claims, especially in complex fields like ethics or politics where diverse viewpoints abound. It encourages individuals to critically engage with differing opinions, potentially leading to more informed beliefs. However, a significant weakness lies in its challenge of determining when adjustment is warranted; excessive conciliation might lead to epistemic paralysis or abandonment of well-founded beliefs. In contentious areas, where disagreements are often deeply rooted, conciliationism may struggle to provide clear guidance on which beliefs should be adjusted or retained.

Related terms

Epistemic Peer: An individual who has roughly the same evidence and cognitive abilities as another individual, making their disagreement relevant to the assessment of beliefs.

Disagreement Thesis: The claim that when two epistemic peers disagree, at least one of them must be mistaken about their belief.

Epistemic Humility: The recognition of the limits of one's knowledge and the willingness to reconsider one's beliefs in light of new evidence or arguments.