Peer Disagreement and Personal Responsibility

Öz

If you encounter a disagreement, what makes you think you are the right party? You may think you know better. What if your opponent is someone you considered epistemically equal to yourself? Someone who is your peer. Peer disagreement, as a relatively recent topic in epistemology, has attracted increasing attention. Thus, there are some gaps in the field. In this research, I aim to address one aspect of it, which is the individuality of epistemic responsibility. In the first part, key concepts of the discussion and various attitudes derived from the systematization of these concepts, such as peerness standards, rationality, permissiveness, uniqueness thesis, and principle of independence will be examined and then the new position will be introduced. A number of positions have been developed through different systematizations of these concepts. In the second part of the article, those different approaches; steadfast view, conciliatory view, justificationist view, equal weight view and total evidence view of peer disagreement with pros and cons in solution and explanatory power will be explained. After setting the tone of the discussion, the justification of why personal responsibility matters and what is special to it will be discussed. Briefly, the responsibility view provides a steadfast position while not rejecting the principle of independence and uniqueness thesis and, by not breaking the ideal peer disagreement. Finally, the application of this position will be demonstrated on religious and non-religious beliefs, and it will be shown that even in an ideal peer disagreement on religious beliefs, individuals can keep their position.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Philosophy of Religion
• Epistemology of Disagreement
• Peer Disagreement
• Steadfastness
• Conciliationism.

Denk İhtilafı ve Bireysel Sorumluluk

Öz

Bir ihtilafla karşılaştığınızda size haklı taraf olduğunuz düşündürten şey nedir? Elbette doğru bildiğinizi düşünebilirsiniz fakat ihtilaf ettiğiniz kişiyi epistemik olarak kendinize denk görüyorsanız durum ne olur? Kendinize denk olarak kabul ettikten sonra, karşınızdaki kişiyi görmezden gelmek için gerçekten bir gerekçeye sahip misiniz? İhtilaf epistemolojisi, görece yeni bir tartışma alanı olarak gelişmektedir. Bu sebeple, hala bazı boşluklara sahiptir. Makalede, epistemik sorumluluğun bireyselliğini açıklayarak bu boşluklardan birini dolduruyorum. Makalenin birinci bölümünde, epistemik denklik standartları, rasyonalite, müsamahacalık, eşsizlik tezi, bağımsızlık tezi gibi anahtar kavramların analizi ve kendi pozisyonumun çekirdeği yer alacaktır. Sonrasında ise bu kavramların farklı kullanımlarından ortaya çıkan; fikir değiştirmemeyi savunan kararlılık görüşü, fikir değiştirmeyi savunan uzlaşımcı görüş, eşit ağırlık görüşü, gerekçelendirmeci görüş ve toplam delil görüşü olarak isimlendirilen pozisyonlar güçlü ve zayıf yönleriyle değerlendirilecektir. Tartışmanın zemini hazırlandıktan sonra bireysel sorumluluğun neden önemli olduğu tartışılacaktır. İleri sürülen sorumlulukçu yaklaşım, kararlılık görüşünün bir versiyonu olmakla birlikte bağımsızlık prensibini ve eşsizlik tezini reddetmemektedir ve dolayısıyla kararlılık görüşünü savunmak için denkliği ortadan kaldırmamaktadır. Son olarak makalede, ileri sürülen sorumlulukçu yaklaşım dinî denk ihtilafına uygulanacaktır ve dinî ihtilafta taraflar epistemik olarak birbirine ideal anlamda denk dahi olsa sorumluluğun bireyselliğinden hareketle tarafların inançlarında sabit kalmasının gerekçelendirilebileceği savunulacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uzlaşımcılık.
• Din Felsefesi
• İhtilaf Epistemolojisi
• Denk İhtilafı
• Kararlılıkçılık

Kaynakça

1. Aslantatar, Nesim. “Conciliationism as Epistemic Concession in Religious Peer Disagreement.” Journal of Ilahiyat Researches 65:1 (2025): 1-15. doi.org/10.29288/ilted.1657637
2. Aslantatar, Nesim. “İhtilafın Epistemolojisi ve Meta-Problemler.” Şırnak Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 36 (2025): 24-42. doi.org/10.35415/sirnakifd.1614806
3. Bergman, Michael. “Rational Disagreement After Full Disclosure.” Episteme 6:3 (2009): 336–353. doi.org/10.3366/E1742360009000756
4. Christensen, David. “Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy.” Philosophy Compass 4:5 (2009): 756-767. doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00237.x
5. Christensen, David. “Epistemic Modesty Defended.” In The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, ed. David Christensen and Jennifer Lackey, 77-97. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
6. Christensen, David. “Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News.” The Philosophical Review 116:2 (2007): 187–217. doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2006-035
7. Cohen, Stewart. “A Defense of the (Almost) Equal Weight View.” In The Epistemology of Disagreement, ed. David Christensen and Jennifer Lackey, 98–117. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
8. Çakmak, Mustafa. Dini Çeşitliliğin Epistemolojisi. İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 2024.

9. Dormandy, Katherine. “The Loyalty of Religious Disagreement.” In Religious Disagreement and Pluralism, ed. Matthew A. Benton and Jonathan L. Kvanvig, 238-270. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.
10. Elga, Adam. “Reflection and Disagreement.” Noûs 41:3 (2007): 478–502. doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2007.00656.x
11. Elgin, Catherine Z. “Reasonable Disagreement.” In Voicing Dissent: The Ethics and Epistemology of Making Disagreement Public, ed. Casey Rebecca Johnson, 10–21. New York: Routledge, 2018.
12. Enoch, David. “Not Just a Truthometer: Taking Oneself Seriously (but Not Too Seriously) in Cases of Peer Disagreement.” Mind 119:476 (2010): 953–997. doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzq070
13. Feldman Richard. “Reasonable Religious Disagreements.” In Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life, ed. Louise M. Anthony, 194–214. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
14. Foley, Richard. Intellectual Trust in Oneself and Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
15. Gausselin, Kevin. “Conciliationism and the Peer-Undermining Problem.” Synthese 203:4 (2024): 1–18. doi.org/10.1007/s11229-024-04511-4
16. Hajek, Alan. “Pascal’s Wager.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/pascal-wager/ (accessed 25.04.2026)
17. Inwagen, Peter van. “It Is Wrong, Everywhere, Always, and for Anyone, to Believe Anything Upon Insufficient Evidence.” In Faith, Freedom, and Rationality, ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder and Jeff Jordan, 137–153. Lanham: Rowman&Littlefield, 1996.
18. Kelly, Thomas. “Evidence Can Be Permissive.” In Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, 2nd Edition, ed. Mathias Steup, John Turri and Ernest Sosa, 298–312. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell Publisher, 2014.
19. Kelly, Thomas. “Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence.” In Social Epistemology: Essential Readings, ed. Dennis Whitcomb and Alvin I. Goldman, 183–217. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
20. Kelly, Thomas. “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.” In Oxford Studies in Epistemology, ed. Tamar Szabo Gendler and John Hawthorne, 167–196. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
21. Kornblith, Hilary. “Is Philosophical Knowledge Possible?” In Disagreement and Skepticism, ed. Diego E. Machuca, 260–276. New York: Routledge, 2013.
22. Kütükcü, Elif. “İhtilafın Epistemolojisi ve Dini Çeşitlilik.” PhD Thesis, Ankara University, Ankara, 2022.
23. Lackey, Jennifer. “A Justificationist View of Disagreement’s Epistemic Significance.” In Social Epistemology, ed. Duncan Pritchard, Alan Millar and Adrian Haddock, 298–325. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
24. Lackey, Jennifer. “What Should We Do When We Disagree?” In Oxford Studies in Epistemology, ed. Tamar Szabó Gendler, John Hawthorne, 274–293. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
25. Lougheed, Kirk. The Epistemic Benefits of Disagreement. Cham: Springer, 2020. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34503-7
26. Machuca, Diego E. “Personal Information as Symmetry Breaker in Disagreements.” Philosophy 97:1 (2022): 51–70. doi.org/10.1017/S0031819121000292
27. Matheson, Jonathan. The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
28. Moore, G. Edward. “Proof of an External World.” In G. E. Moore: Selected Writings, ed. Thomas Baldwin, 147-170. New York: Routledge, 1993.
29. Reining, Stefan. “On The Supposed Dilemma of Conciliationism.” Episteme 13:3 (2016), 305-328. doi.org/10.1017/epi.2015.47
30. Sosa, Ernest. “The Epistemology of Disagreement.” In Social Epistemology, ed. Duncan Pritchard, Alan Millar, Adrian Haddock, 278–297. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
31. Tanış, Abdulkadir. “Denklerin İhtilafı, Dinî İnanç ve Şüphecilik.” Artuklu Akademi 11:1 (2024): 15-31. doi.org/10.34247/artukluakademi.1447155
32. Turnbull, Margaret Greta. “Religious Disagreement Is Not Unique.” In Religious Disagreement and Pluralism, ed. Matthew A Benton and Jonathan L. Kvanvig, 91–107. New York: Oxford University Press, 2021.
33. White, Roger. “Epistemic Permissiveness.” Philosophical Perspectives 19:1 (2005): 445-459. doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2005.00069.x
34. Yunus Emre. Nasihatler Kitabı, ed. Ziya Avşar. Ankara: Eskişehir 2013 Türk Dünyası Kültür Başkenti Ajansı, 2013.