scholarly journals A Faithful Response to Disagreement

2021 ◽  
Vol 130 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-226
Author(s):  
Lara Buchak
Keyword(s):  
Total Evidence ◽  
Peer Disagreement

In the peer disagreement debate, three intuitively attractive claims seem to conflict: there is disagreement among peers on many important matters; peer disagreement is a serious challenge to one's own opinion; and yet one should be able to maintain one's opinion on important matters. This article shows that contrary to initial appearances, we can accept all three of these claims. Disagreement significantly shifts the balance of the evidence; but with respect to certain kinds of claims, one should nonetheless retain one's beliefs. And one should retain them even though these beliefs would not be supported by the new total evidence if one didn't already hold them.

A new species of Contomastix (Squamata, Teiidae) supported by total evidence, with remarks on diagnostic characters defining the genus

2019 ◽  
pp. 23-36
Author(s):  
Mario. R. Cabrera
Keyword(s):  
New Species ◽  
Geographic Distribution ◽  
Phylogenetic Reconstruction ◽  
Total Evidence ◽  
Molecular Evidence ◽  
Proximal Margin ◽  
Diagnostic Characters ◽  
Morphological Differences ◽  
A New Species ◽  
Molecular Characters

Formerly Cnemidophorus was thought to be the most speciose genus of Teiidae. This genus comprised four morphological groups that were later defined as four different genera, Ameivula, Aurivela, Cnemidophorus and Contomastix. The last appears as paraphyletic in a recent phylogenetic reconstruction based on morphology, but monophyletic in a reconstruction using molecular characters. Six species are allocated to Contomastix. One of them, C. lacertoides, having an extensive and disjunct geographic distribution in Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil. Preliminary analyses revealed morphological differences among its populations, suggesting that it is actually a complex of species. Here, we describe a new species corresponding to the Argentinian populations hitherto regarded as C. lacertoides, by integrating morphological and molecular evidence. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the presence of notched proximal margin of the tongue is a character that defines the genus Contomastix.

Religious Disagreement, Religious Experience, and the Evil God Hypothesis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirk Lougheed
Keyword(s):  
Religious Experience ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Religious Believer ◽  
Religious Experiences ◽  
Peer Disagreement ◽  
Epistemic Peer ◽  
Religious Disagreement

Conciliationism is the view that says when an agent who believes P becomes aware of an epistemic peer who believes not-P, that she encounters a (partial) defeater for her belief that P. Strong versions of conciliationism pose a sceptical threat to many, if not most, religious beliefs since religion is rife with peer disagreement. Elsewhere (Removed) I argue that one way for a religious believer to avoid sceptical challenges posed by strong conciliationism is by appealing to the evidential import of religious experience. Not only can religious experience be used to establish a relevant evidential asymmetry between disagreeing parties, but reliable reports of such experiences also start to put pressure on the religious sceptic to conciliate toward her religious opponent. Recently, however, Asha Lancaster-Thomas poses a highly innovative challenge to the evidential import of religious experience. Namely, she argues that an evil God is just as likely to explain negative religious experiences as a good God is able to explain positive religious experiences. In light of this, religious believers need to explain why a good God exists instead of an evil God. I respond to Lancaster-Thomas by suggesting that, at least within the context of religious experience, (i) that the evil God hypothesis is only a challenge to certain versions of theism; and (ii) that the existence of an evil God and good God are compossible.

An Outline of a Theory of Propositional Vagueness

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Bacon
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Total Evidence ◽  
Coarse Grained ◽  
Atomic Boolean Algebra

This chapter presents a series questions in the philosophy of vagueness that will constitute the primary subjects of this book. The stance this book takes on these questions is outlined, and some preliminary ramifications are explored. These include the idea that (i) propositional vagueness is more fundamental than linguistic vagueness; (ii) propositions are not themselves sentence-like; they are coarse grained, and form a complete atomic Boolean algebra; (iii) vague propositions are, moreover, not simply linguistic constructions either such as sets of world-precisification pairs; and (iv) propositional vagueness is to be understood by its role in thought. Specific theses relating to the last idea include the thesis that one’s total evidence can be vague, and that there are vague propositions occupying every evidential role, that disagreements about the vague ultimately boil down to disagreements in the precise, and that one should not care intrinsically about vague matters.

scholarly journals The Problem of Unwelcome Epistemic Company

Episteme ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Joshua Blanchard
Keyword(s):  
Peer Disagreement ◽  
Normative Status

Abstract Many of us are unmoved when it is objected that some morally or intellectually suspect source agrees with our belief. While we may tend to find this kind of guilt by epistemic association unproblematic, I argue that this tendency is a mistake. We sometimes face what I call the problem of unwelcome epistemic company. This is the problem of encountering agreement about the content of your belief from a source whose faults give you reason to worry about the belief's truth, normative status, etiology, or implications. On the basis of an array of cases, I elaborate four distinct kinds of problems that unwelcome epistemic company poses. Two of these are distinctly epistemic, and two are moral. I canvass possible responses, ranging from stubbornness to an epistemic prudishness that avoids unwelcome company at all costs. Finally, I offer preliminary lessons of the problem and distinguish it from the problem of peer disagreement.

scholarly journals Phylogeny of hornets: a total evidence approach (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Vespinae, Vespa)

2013 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrien Perrard ◽  
Kurt Pickett ◽  
Claire Villemant ◽  
Jun-ichi Kojima ◽  
James Carpenter
Keyword(s):  
Total Evidence

A giant within Carpocorini (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae): Description of Adustonotus graziae sp. nov.

Zootaxa ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4958 (1) ◽  
pp. 489-502
Author(s):  
FILIPE MICHELS BIANCHI
Keyword(s):  
Morphological Characters ◽  
The Other ◽  
Total Evidence ◽  
Valid Species ◽  
Phylogenetic Position ◽  
New Taxon ◽  
Large Size ◽  
Internal Genitalia ◽  
Evidence Analysis ◽  
Heteroptera Pentatomidae

The Carpocorini are distributed worldwide, and it is one of the most speciose tribes within the Pentatomidae with 127 genera and more than 500 valid species. Recently, Adustonotus Bianchi was described to contain eight species formerly placed within Euschistus Dallas. Among them, Adustonotus grandis (Rolston) and Adustonotus latus (Dallas) are remarkable for their large size. Herein, the phylogenetic position of a new taxon is inferred by a total evidence analysis based on 85 morphological characters and four molecular markers. Adustonotus graziae sp. nov. is described, and is recovered in a polytomic lineage, including A. grandis and A. latus. These species share a solid combination of features that enable them to be separated from the other Adustonotus species (e.g., large size, the humeral angles spatulate and exceptionally produced, and the capsula seminalis shortened). Illustrations of external and internal genitalia, and a distributional map are provided. 

Conciliatory Views on Peer Disagreement and the Order of Evidence Acquisition

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Andree Weber
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Imprecise Probabilities ◽  
Peer Disagreement

Abstract The evidence that we get from peer disagreement is especially problematic from a Bayesian point of view since the belief revision caused by a piece of such evidence cannot be modelled along the lines of Bayesian conditionalisation. This paper explains how exactly this problem arises, what features of peer disagreements are responsible for it, and what lessons should be drawn for both the analysis of peer disagreements and Bayesian conditionalisation as a model of evidence acquisition. In particular, it is pointed out that the same characteristic of evidence from disagreement that explains the problems with Bayesian conditionalisation also suggests an interpretation of suspension of belief in terms of imprecise probabilities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document