The co-occurrence principle: The step-by-step response towards peer disagreement

Date of Publication

2023

Document Type

Bachelor's Thesis

Degree Name

Bachelor of Arts Major in Philosophy

Subject Categories

Philosophy

College

College of Liberal Arts

Department/Unit

Philosophy

Thesis Advisor

Mark Anthony L. Dacela

Defense Panel Member

Robert James M. Boyles
Napoleon M. Mabaquiao, Jr.
Elenita D. Garcia

Abstract/Summary

How does one respond in light of disagreement? How should one respond if the disagreement came from an epistemic peer? An epistemic peer is someone whom you consider to reason as well as you do. Epistemologists like Thomas Kelly, Stewart Cohen, and Thomas Grundman to name a few all have proposed and defended different views on how to rationally respond to peer disagreement. This paper suggests that it is acquiring certain parts from the three heavily debated views of peer disagreement which are the Equal Weight view, The Total Evidence view, and The Preemption view to form a new view which I call the Co-Occurrence Principle. The Co-Occurrence Principle is an alternative response to peer disagreement which utilizes the element of suspending one’s judgments of the Equal Weight view as the first step, then followed by the element of reviewing both peer's total garnered evidence from the Total Evidence view as the second step, and then the element of taking one’s view preemptively from the Preemption view as the last step in an attempt to solve disagreements that deal with non-relative truths. I claim that the ambiguities of each of the views have been solved and answered by one another by combining specific elements from them in the principle. The Equal Weight view ambiguities are it lacks sufficient explanatory depth that explains what is epistemically required of the peers involved in the disagreement and it fails to determine and dish out a verdict between the peers. The Total Evidence view together with the Equal Weight view answers the first ambiguity of the Equal Weight view but still fails to determine and provide a verdict. In this paper, I will emphasize the need for a platform for further factual checks and to determine the correct verdict. I add the Preemptive view to completely answer the ambiguities of the views mentioned to finally form the Co-Occurrence Principle. The correct verdict, in every disagreement, should always be sought to determine it. The correct verdict eliminates the possibility of prolonging the disagreement and provides a way for the right course of action that the peers should take. Furthermore, If the correct verdict has been reached, the peer who does not have the correct verdict must take in the views of the one who possesses the correct verdict. This eliminates the possibility of possessing wrong beliefs even if the correct verdict has been issued.

Abstract Format

html

Language

English

Format

Electronic

Keywords

Epistemics; Knowledge, Theory of

Upload Full Text

wf_yes

Embargo Period

4-27-2023

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS