東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Political Justificationism: A More R...

Carlson, Jay.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Political Justificationism: A More Realistic Epistemology of Political Disagreement.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Political Justificationism: A More Realistic Epistemology of Political Disagreement./
Author:	Carlson, Jay.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2021,
Description:	150 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-01, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International83-01A.
Subject:	Philosophy. -
Online resource:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28319944
ISBN:	9798516949104

Political Justificationism: A More Realistic Epistemology of Political Disagreement.
Carlson, Jay.

Political Justificationism: A More Realistic Epistemology of Political Disagreement. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2021 - 150 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-01, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Loyola University Chicago, 2021.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

Disagreement is probably the most salient feature of our contemporary political environment. This project aims to examine political disagreements from the perspective of the recent discussions of the epistemology of disagreement more generally. Some, known as conciliationists, argue that when confronted with a disagreement with someone who is equally knowledgeable and well-informed as you are on the issue (known as an "epistemic peer"), one should become substantially less confident in that antecedently held belief. While some have tried to straightforwardly apply the conciliationist approach to political disagreements, I argue that such an approach makes us vulnerable to significant cognitive biases of groupthink and conformity. Instead, I argue that a more satisfactory epistemology of political disagreements has to take a more fine-grained approach to the kind of disagreement taking place: for any given political disagreement, whether (and to what extent) one should adjust one's confidence, the content, or the policy one wants probably depends on whether it is over a fact or a value, whether it is deep or narrow, reasonable or unreasonable. The impact of this more variable and particularist approach to disagreement suggests that the epistemic requirements for political liberalism are much more lenient than some conciliationists suggest; we can respond to political disagreements by adopting stances of intellectual humility, seeking overlapping reasons, and even adopting compromises, without becoming substantially more skeptical about our political judgments. We can also use this moderate approach conforms with some recent empirical results on deliberative democracy, and provides a theoretical foundation to deal with political disagreements in a more productive manner.

ISBN: 9798516949104Subjects--Topical Terms:

516511
Philosophy.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Deliberative democracy

Political Justificationism: A More Realistic Epistemology of Political Disagreement.
LDR:02988nmm a2200385 4500 001 2282004
005 20210927083516.5
008 220723s2021 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798516949104
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28319944
035 $a AAI28319944
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Carlson, Jay. $3 3560726
245 1 0 $a Political Justificationism: A More Realistic Epistemology of Political Disagreement.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2021
300 $a 150 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-01, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Ingram, David.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Loyola University Chicago, 2021.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a Disagreement is probably the most salient feature of our contemporary political environment. This project aims to examine political disagreements from the perspective of the recent discussions of the epistemology of disagreement more generally. Some, known as conciliationists, argue that when confronted with a disagreement with someone who is equally knowledgeable and well-informed as you are on the issue (known as an "epistemic peer"), one should become substantially less confident in that antecedently held belief. While some have tried to straightforwardly apply the conciliationist approach to political disagreements, I argue that such an approach makes us vulnerable to significant cognitive biases of groupthink and conformity. Instead, I argue that a more satisfactory epistemology of political disagreements has to take a more fine-grained approach to the kind of disagreement taking place: for any given political disagreement, whether (and to what extent) one should adjust one's confidence, the content, or the policy one wants probably depends on whether it is over a fact or a value, whether it is deep or narrow, reasonable or unreasonable. The impact of this more variable and particularist approach to disagreement suggests that the epistemic requirements for political liberalism are much more lenient than some conciliationists suggest; we can respond to political disagreements by adopting stances of intellectual humility, seeking overlapping reasons, and even adopting compromises, without becoming substantially more skeptical about our political judgments. We can also use this moderate approach conforms with some recent empirical results on deliberative democracy, and provides a theoretical foundation to deal with political disagreements in a more productive manner.
590 $a School code: 0112.
650 4 $a Philosophy. $3 516511
650 4 $a Ethics. $3 517264
650 4 $a Epistemology. $3 896969
650 4 $a Political science. $3 528916
650 4 $a Communication. $3 524709
653 $a Deliberative democracy
653 $a Epistemic humility
653 $a Political disagreement
653 $a Discourse
690 $a 0422
690 $a 0459
690 $a 0393
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0394
710 2 $a Loyola University Chicago. $b Philosophy. $3 1669702
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 83-01A.
790 $a 0112
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2021
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28319944