Epistemology of Disagreement

Epistemology of Disagreement

Disagreement is one of the most present issues that humans face in their relations with each other. It comes from the differences of perspectives from which everyone sees the subject of the discussion. It is true that disagreement is important for humans in order to reach a certain level of critical thinking that is crucial for them to move forward in their pursuit of the truth. This can be the case only and if only the disagreement was managed in a way that will allow all the sides to express themselves and make their point of view. Most of today’s disagreements have to deal either with the philosophical background, the political belonging, or the religious beliefs. Does disagreement with intellectual peer reduce the confidence one has in his own beliefs?

Before considering the effect that difference would have on the cases of Christianity, we should first characterize some wording and take a gander at some obvious cases that rouse an issue for the support of religious convictions.

One condition for the kind of contradiction I'll be talking about is that the individual with whom you are differing is an epistemic companion. An epistemic companion is an individual who has pretty nearly the same discerning limits and foundation convictions as yourself. For most individuals perusing this article, not Forrest Gump or Isaac Newton will consider epistemic associates. The previous has essentially lesser level-headed limits as yourself, while the recent has astoundingly more noteworthy objective limits as yourself. Besides, notwithstanding these evident contrasts in reasonable limits, both Gump and Newton may be discounted as epistemic associates for a free reason—they both have a fundamentally diverse set of foundation convictions from yourself (because of transient, and conceivably geological, contrasts). Along these lines, the sort of contradiction that we're examining includes an epistemic companion, an individual who has...