Divided we stand

Abstract

Translate Article

Why study deep disagreement? In liberal democracies, people often hold wildly different views on facts, values, and worldviews. Such disagreements can be beneficial because they invite scrutiny of our own reasoning and expose us to diverse perspectives. However, not all disagreement is beneficial for society. When disagreements become extreme, they can tear at the social fabric. In some cases, clashing worldviews can erupt into violence. An example is the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, where supporters of President Trump, driven by conspiracy beliefs, attempted to overturn election results. Similar incidents include the 2023 storming of Brazil’s Congress and violent protests in the Netherlands, such as the 2021 anti lockdown riots and the 2022 farmer protests. These cases underscore why deep disagreement is an urgent subject of study as such intractable conflicts can threaten social stability and democratic institutions. This is a thesis in the philosophical field of social epistemology. Social epistemology studies the social dimensions of knowledge and asks questions such as ‘How do we know which expert to trust?’ and ‘How do biases influence what we know?’. The epistemology of disagreement is a field of social epistemology that typically asks how individuals should respond when faced with an equally informed person who disagrees with them. If you disagree with a friend about the amount each of you should pay when splitting a restaurant bill, despite having the same receipt and no obvious calculation errors, what should your responsebe? Traditional epistemology of disagreement debates whether you should stick fully to your own belief (steadfast) or lower your confidence level (conciliatory) in such cases. Most of the literature in the epistemology of deep disagreement deals with relatively straightforward disagreements among equals. However, much less attention has been paid to deep disagreements, disagreements that are persistent, fundamental, and resist resolution. This dissertation aims to fill that gap. This thesis consists of a number of articles that cluster around the topic of deep disagreement and group epistemology. This thesis provides a comprehensive, multi-level analysis of why certain disagreements resist resolution and what that means for us as knowers and citizens. The significance of this dissertation is both theoretical and practical. Theoretically, it advances the epistemology of disagreement by moving beyond idealized scenarios to the hard cases that matter in real life. It aims to connect epistemology with social issues like injustice, group dynamics, and political theory, thereby enriching our understanding of knowledge in a social context. Practically, this work may help understanding why real life issues like debates over climate change, public health measures and social justice often devolve into stalemates or worse. This dissertation sheds light on why that happens. For example, it helps explain the persistent stalemate on climate action: it’s not just a scientific debate, but a deep disagreement involving clashing values, economic interests, and even denialism. Essentially, it’s about different “epistemic worlds”. Understanding that suggests that more facts alone won’t convince the other side. Other strategies (perhaps an agonistic acceptance that not everyone will ever agree, coupled with institutions that still move forward) are needed. The findings on epistemic injustice imply that building trust and credibility is key. Efforts to resolve disagreements should include elevating marginalized voices and ensuring all sides feel heard should be made. For instance, in community policing debates, acknowledging the lived experiences of minority communities is crucial to bridging divides. Ultimately, deep disagreements are here to stay. This thesis underlines the need for continued interdisciplinary work on deep disagreement.