Epistemic peer disagreement poses a challenge: when someone with equal competence and information disagrees with you, should you lower confidence in your belief? The Equal Weight View says yes—give their view equal weight, often requiring suspension of judgment. Critics argue this leads to spinelessness, undermining convictions on every contested issue. Some propose that being the one who formed the belief gives you privileged access to the reasoning, justifying some resistance to peer disagreement.
The passage suggests that
all peers always agree about everything
the Equal Weight View says to ignore disagreement entirely
there are no critics of the Equal Weight View
how we should respond to disagreement may depend on what we consider relevant about the believer's epistemic position
Correct Answer: D
Choice D is the best answer. Privileged access to one's own reasoning might justify resistance.
- Context clues: Some propose that forming the belief gives "privileged access to the reasoning."
- Meaning: Whether to defer depends on what epistemic advantages you might have.
- Verify: The debate is about what factors are relevant to responding to disagreement.
💡 Strategy: When different proposals rest on different epistemic factors, infer response depends on what's considered relevant.
Choice A is incorrect because disagreement is the phenomenon under discussion. Choice B is incorrect because the Equal Weight View says give the peer's view "equal weight." Choice C is incorrect because critics "argue this leads to spinelessness."