ABSTRACT

Two kinds of disagreement have been of great interest to social epistemology in recent decades: deep disagreements, which take place when the dispute between the parties is systematic and particularly difficult to resolve, and disagreements between epistemic peers, caused by the confrontation between agents who have the same evidence and cognitive virtues regarding the topic under discussion. The purpose of this article is to work on the intersection of them, evaluating the consequences of a deep disagreement between peers. In particular, I argue that, when a disagreement reaches very deep levels, it is impossible for the parties to recognize each other as peers, since they cannot assume that they are equally rational.

Keywords:
social epistemology; deep disagreement; epistemic peers; epistemic perspectives