Argument from disagreement

Definition

The argument from disagreement is a philosophical concept that suggests the existence of significant disagreements among knowledgeable individuals about a particular belief or claim indicates that the belief may not be true or justified. This concept connects to broader discussions about knowledge, belief, and the nature of truth, especially in the context of skepticism, where differing views challenge the certainty of knowledge.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The argument from disagreement raises the question of how to respond to conflicting beliefs held by equally informed individuals, suggesting that such conflict undermines the justification for any single belief.
2. In the context of Academic Skepticism, figures like Arcesilaus and Carneades used this argument to challenge dogmatic claims to knowledge, emphasizing that if knowledgeable people disagree, we should suspend judgment on those claims.
3. Pyrrhonian Skepticism takes this further by advocating for epoché, or suspension of judgment, as a means to achieve tranquility and freedom from disturbance caused by conflicting beliefs.
4. The argument from disagreement has implications for debates about moral and ethical relativism, where differing opinions on moral issues can complicate claims to objective moral truths.
5. This argument is often used to highlight the fallibility of human reasoning and perception, suggesting that our beliefs might be less reliable than we assume due to the existence of disagreement.

Review Questions

• How does the argument from disagreement challenge our understanding of knowledge in the context of differing philosophical views?
  • The argument from disagreement challenges our understanding of knowledge by highlighting that when knowledgeable individuals disagree on a belief, it raises doubts about the certainty and justification of that belief. This skepticism forces us to reconsider what we accept as true since conflicting opinions suggest that our own beliefs may not be as secure as we think. It encourages a critical examination of our own convictions and opens up space for deeper inquiry into what constitutes valid knowledge.
• Discuss how Arcesilaus and Carneades utilized the argument from disagreement in their philosophical teachings on skepticism.
  • Arcesilaus and Carneades employed the argument from disagreement to advocate for a form of skepticism that questioned dogmatic assertions about knowledge. They pointed out that if equally knowledgeable individuals arrive at different conclusions regarding truth, this uncertainty calls into question the validity of any single belief. Their teachings encouraged suspending judgment rather than committing to one perspective, thereby fostering an intellectual environment that valued inquiry over certainty.
• Evaluate the implications of the argument from disagreement for moral relativism and its effects on ethical decision-making.
  • The implications of the argument from disagreement for moral relativism are profound, as it suggests that differing moral views among informed individuals challenge the notion of absolute moral truths. This creates a framework where ethical decision-making becomes more complex since what one group considers morally acceptable might be deemed wrong by another. By acknowledging this disagreement, individuals are prompted to reflect on their own ethical positions and consider multiple perspectives, which can lead to more nuanced and compassionate approaches to ethical dilemmas.

Related terms

Skepticism: A philosophical approach that questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge, often highlighting the limitations of human perception and reasoning.

Relativism:

The idea that truth and moral values are not absolute but instead are shaped by cultural, historical, or personal contexts.

Consensus: An agreement among a group of people, often used in discussions about knowledge claims to signify a shared understanding or acceptance of a particular viewpoint.