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

Clicks: 3
ID: 287050
2023
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #1,764 of 3,757 articles by views in Malay Journal

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 3,757 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
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.
Reference Key
persistent_1760660442_68f18bda7032a Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Himan, Ysrael C.
Journal Malay Journal
Year 2023
DOI
DOI not found
URL
https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etdb_philo/40
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.