Philosophers find path through disagreement using reflective equilibrium method
A new paper resolves a decades-old critique of reflective equilibrium—a decision-making method used in policy, ethics, and organizational management. By showing how rational people can navigate genuine disagreement without abandoning the approach, researchers strengthen its credibility for leaders making high-stakes choices under conflicting expert opinion.
Originaltitel: Seeking a reflective equilibrium in the face of disagreement
<p>How is someone who seeks a reflective equilibrium to respond upon learning that others disagree with her? Regrettably, not much attention has been devoted to that question despite the extensive general discussion about the epistemic significance of disagreement that has taken place in recent years. This paper helps fill the lacuna by exploring possible connections between the relevant bodies of literature. More specifically, I claim that how users of the method of reflective equilibrium should respond to disagreement is crucial to the assessment of the method. According to a common objection, it is flawed because it may lead competent and rational inquirers to arrive at widely divergent and inconsistent equilibria. What I argue is that defensible assumptions about the significance of disagreement permit an advocate of the method to resist that objection.</p>