Disagreement with others about belief: VCE Philosophy
“Viewpoints and arguments on how to respond to others holding beliefs that disagree with our own, including peer disagreement”
Mill argues that disagreement is valuable: the opposing view may be true, may hold part of the truth, and challenges us so that our own beliefs do not become dead prejudice. Peirce implies that disagreement unsettles the method of tenacity, because we live among others who believe differently. Nguyen shows that in an echo chamber, disagreement is pre-emptively discredited, so outsiders are written off. On peer disagreement, three responses are usually discussed: stay steadfast, conciliate (move toward the other view) or suspend judgement. A balanced answer says the right response depends on how independent and symmetrical the disagreement really is.
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
When someone disagrees with you, should you change your mind, hold firm or seek more evidence? The study design names peer disagreement, which is disagreement with someone as informed and capable as you are, as a key concept.
What counts as peer disagreement
Two people are epistemic peers on a question when they are about equally informed, equally intelligent and equally careful. Disagreement between peers is puzzling: each has as much reason to think the other is right. Contrast with disagreement where one person knows more, in which deferring seems fine.
The main responses
- Steadfast: keep your belief. Reason: you cannot step outside your own reasoning, and you may have evidence the other lacks, or you may have seen something they missed.
- Conciliatory: move toward the other's view, perhaps to a middle position. Reason: if each is equally likely to be right, then treating your own judgement as special is arbitrary.
- Suspend judgement: neither affirm nor deny. Reason: disagreement is evidence that one of you has made a mistake, and you cannot tell which.
These positions are standard in the topic, though the set texts do not use this vocabulary, so present them as a framework you apply to the texts.
What the set texts add
- Mill: disagreement is a resource. Listening to opponents is the only way to understand your own view fully. Even where you are right, if the view is never challenged it is held as prejudice and loses its meaning. This favours active engagement and discourages silencing.
- Peirce: a person who holds on to belief regardless of others will find the method fails when they meet differing opinions. His preferred method is the one that all inquirers would converge on, so disagreement is a prompt to investigate the world, not to win.
- Nguyen: an echo chamber, as he describes it, is a social structure in which other relevant voices are actively discredited, so that members are insulated from disagreement. A mere epistemic bubble omits outside voices by accident, but an echo chamber teaches members to distrust them. Leaving is hard because the very evidence that should unsettle members has been pre-labelled as untrustworthy.
- Miranda Fricker: disagreement can be handled unjustly if one party's word is automatically discounted because of who they are. A fair response to disagreement begins by giving the other a hearing.
Evaluation
- Mill's argument may be too optimistic about discussion: some views are well refuted and revisiting them wastes time, and some debates platform harmful falsehoods. But he would answer that the grounds for the view should be known and re-examined, otherwise it is not held rationally.
- Conciliation can make us overly sensitive to the loudest voices; steadfastness can slide into dogmatism. A hybrid: take disagreement seriously as evidence, check whether the other person really is a peer, and look for further evidence before moving.
- In practice, many disagreements are not between peers: one side may lack information or be motivated by interest. Independent reasons are needed to judge.
Question: Two doctors of equal standing disagree about a treatment. What should you, the patient, believe?
You are not in a position to decide the technical issue, so a steadfast stance is unavailable. Conciliation or suspension is appropriate: neither doctor has priority, so you should lower your confidence in each. Practical response: seek a third opinion, look for independent evidence such as guidelines, and ask each to explain their reasons. Mill's point applies: engage with both arguments and not just the one you prefer.
Practice questions
What is peer disagreement?
Model answer: A disagreement between people who are equally informed and equally capable on the question, so neither has an obvious reason to think they are more likely to be right.
Explain how Nguyen's account of echo chambers makes disagreement hard to resolve.
Model answer: In an echo chamber members are taught to distrust outsiders, so contrary evidence is dismissed in advance. Because the community has built a defence against disagreement, simply exposing members to other views does not work.
Do not claim Mill says every view is equally true. His argument is that a view must be open to challenge, and that even false views can be useful, because they sharpen our grasp of the truth.