Im Rahmen des Forschungsseminars laden wir recht herzlich ein zum Vortrag:

Prof. Erik Olsson (Lund University)
"A Diachronic Perspective on Peer Disagreement"

Abstract
The main issue in the epistemology of peer disagreement is whether known disagreement among those who are in symmetrical epistemic positions undermines the rationality of their maintaining their respective views. Douven and Kelp have argued convincingly that this problem is best understood as being about how to respond to peer disagreement repeatedly over time, and that this diachronic issue can be best approached through computer simulation rather than armchair philosophy. However, Douven and Kelp’s favored simulation framework cannot handle Christensen’s famous Mental Math example. As a remedy, I introduce an alternative (Bayesian) simulation framework, Laputa, inspired by Alvin Goldman’s seminal work on veritistic social epistemology. I show that Christensen’s conciliatory response, reasonably supplemented, gives rise to an increase in epistemic (veritistic) value only if the peers continue to recheck their mental math; else the peers might as well be steadfast.

Short biography
Erik J. Olsson is Professor and Chair in Theoretical Philosophy at Lund University, Sweden. His areas of research include epistemology, philosophical logic, pragmatism, and, more recently, philosophy of the internet. Olsson has published extensively on epistemic coherence, the value of knowledge, the logic of belief revision, and social epistemology. Recent books include Against Coherence: Truth, Probability, and Justification (Oxford University Press, 2005), Knowledge and Inquiry: Essays on the Pragmatism of Isaac Levi (Cambridge University Press, 2006) and Belief Revision Meets Philosophy of Science (Springer, 2011).