The epistemic value of deep disagreements

Abstract

In the epistemology of disagreement literature an underdeveloped argument for non-conciationism is based on the idea that there are epistemic benefits to be gained from disagreement. Such benefits are unobtainable if an agent conciliates in the face of peer disagreement, at least within inquiry-related contexts. In argumentation theory a deep disagreement occurs when there is a disagreement between framework propositions. I argue that deep disagreements can lead to epistemic benefits, at least in the context of inquiry. Whether or not rational resolution is possible in cases of deep disagreements, their existence turns out to be epistemically beneficial.