The view that whenever one discovers that an epistemic peer disagrees about some proposition p, one is justified in conciliating. So, for example, if S1 confidently believes p and discovers that their peer S2 believes p is false with the same degree of confidence, then S1 will be justified in decreasing their confidence about p.
6
5 reads
The idea is part of this collection:
Learn more about philosophy with this collection
The historical significance of urban centers
The impact of cultural and technological advances
The role of urban centers in shaping society
Related collections
Similar ideas to conciliationism
This is a form of false confidence, when we believe that we are above average in just about everything.
Some people form a ‘halo’ around themselves at being extremely competent while being the opposite, as they are unable to measure or even see their shortcomings. This is known as the...
Company growth is not just about products and services but also people and teams. That means creating space for subcultures to emerge. For example, your sales team may have a different working style than your product team.
Leaders may view subcultures as a threat,...
Read & Learn
20x Faster
without
deepstash
with
deepstash
with
deepstash
Personalized microlearning
—
100+ Learning Journeys
—
Access to 200,000+ ideas
—
Access to the mobile app
—
Unlimited idea saving
—
—
Unlimited history
—
—
Unlimited listening to ideas
—
—
Downloading & offline access
—
—
Supercharge your mind with one idea per day
Enter your email and spend 1 minute every day to learn something new.
I agree to receive email updates