Philosophers have recently given much attention to the phenomenon of disagreement, that unhappy and ubiquitous feature of our epistemic lives. In particular, epistemologists have begun to work out in detail the epistemic consequences for an agent S’s belief that p when S discovers that a peer disagrees with her about p. The question is usually put in terms of reasonableness: Can S reasonably continue to believe p once she discovers that her peer believes not-p? There are further questions; for instance, If S continues to believe p after discovering her peer believes not-p, can it be reasonable for S to believe also that her peer believes not-p reasonably?
The burgeoning disagreement literature, in my opinion, is one of the most exciting recent developments in epistemology. My research attempts to further our understanding of the epistemology of disagreement, particularly cases of philosophical, religious, political, and moral disagreement.