Epistemic symmetry and uniqueness thesis: two problems for peer disagreements

Abstract

In this article, I discuss two problematic assumptions in the scenario of peer disagreements: the idealized notion of Epistemic Symmetry and the Uniqueness Thesis. In recent literature on disagreements there is a distinction between real and apparent disagreements, and the main epistemological questions show up only in legitimate cases not in apparent ones. Thus, since an idealized Epistemic Symmetry seems unlikely this would prevent the occurrence of real peer disagreements. Another problematic point is the Uniqueness Thesis, which says that a body of evidence justifies only one proposition or only one doxastic attitude towards a given proposition. However, based on this principle, epistemic peers should converge and not disagree, as they access the same body of evidence. Like this, idealized symmetry and the uniqueness thesis seem not to corroborate the occurrence of real peer disagreements and we should give up at least one of these assumptions. Thus, I offer an argument in favor of the maintenance of the uniqueness thesis and propose a reformulation for the notion of epistemic symmetry.