1st Edition

Disagreement and Skepticism

Edited By Diego E. Machuca Copyright 2013
    316 Pages
    by Routledge

    316 Pages
    by Routledge

    The thirteen essays in this volume explore for the first time the possible skeptical implications of disagreement in different areas and from different perspectives, with an emphasis in the current debate about the epistemic significance of disagreement. They represent a new contribution to the study of the connection between disagreement and skepticism in epistemology, metaethics, ancient philosophy, and metaphilosophy.

    1. Editor’s Introduction Diego E. Machuca  2. Disagreeing with the Pyrrhonist? Otávio Bueno  3. The Role of Disagreement in Pyrrhonian and Cartesian Skepticism Markus Lammenranta  4. A Neo-Pyrrhonian Approach to the Epistemology of Disagreement  Diego E. Machuca  5. Moral Disagreement: Actual vs. Possible Folke Tersman  6. The Fragility of Moral Disagreement Zed Adams  7. How Skeptical is the Equal Weight View? Brandon Carey and Jonathan Matheson  8. Disagreement, Skepticism, and Track-Record Arguments Duncan Pritchard  9. Disagreement and Defeat Clayton Littlejohn  10. Disagreement: The Skeptical Arguments from Peerhood and Symmetry Nathan L. King  11. Dealing with Disagreement from the First-Person Perspective: A Probabilist Proposal Trent Dougherty  12. The Problem of Historical Variability Nathan Ballantyne  13. Is Philosophical Knowledge Possible? Hilary Kornblith  14. Defending Philosophy in the Face of Systematic Disagreement Sandy Goldberg


    Diego E. Machuca is Researcher in Philosophy at the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Argentina. He is co-editor of the International Journal for the Study of Skepticism.

    "With its excellent contributors writing on topical issues of disagreement, this is a very welcome collection. It will attract much interest and should enhance the ongoing debates concerning those issues."

    --Ernest Sosa, Rutgers University

    “The essays are uniformly lucid, and the argumentative moves that are considered are well handled. Overall, the essays make a solid contribution to the ongoing disagreements about disagreement…”

    --Guy Longworth, University of Warwick, UK