Abstract:

What does rationality demand of us when we learn that someone just as reliable as us has encountered the same evidence and arguments, but ends up disagreeing, about some proposition? In this talk, I will use two measures of reliability to evaluate the comparative reliability of subjects who do, and do not, revise their credences in the face of peer disagreement. From these facts about reliability, I will draw some normative conclusions about the rationality of belief-revision in the face of known peer disagreement.