You Choose the Debate: 5 Topics

---------------------------------------------------------------- Set Up I'll be taking the first debate, to stay in numerical order. The conclusion: "Disagreements between Epistemic Peers are impossible. " My position will be PRO, as my opponent has chosen CON in this debate. He should be convincing the readers that disagreements between Epistemic Peers are, in fact, possible. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Definitions pertaining to this debate. 1. Epistemic Peers Suppose we mean by your epistemic peer someone who not only possesses all the intellectual virtues that you do (intelligence, perspicacity, honesty, thoroughness, conscientiousness, thoughtfulness, freedom from bias, sincerity in the pursuit of truth, etc. ) but also someone who has been exposed to just the same arguments and evidence that you have (knowledge base about the subject). Tom Kelly defines "epistemic peer" this way in his "The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement," in Oxford Studies in Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), Tamar Szabo Gendler and John Hawthorne, eds, pp. 174-75 and p. 168. 2. Disagreement We shall take the symbol S1 and S2 to represent two Epistemic Peers in this debate. A Disagreement: To say that S1 and S2 disagree about P just in case one of them believes P, and the other one denies P. To deny P is simply not enough for not believing P. Rather, to deny P is to believe that P is false, or to believe ~P (not P). 3. Knowledge Collection of Justified True Belief. 2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4. Intelligence 1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) 3 : the act of understanding : comprehension . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 5. Impossible Not logically able to occur. 1 a : incapable of being or of occurring b : felt to be incapable of being done, attained, or fulfilled : insuperably difficult . http://www.merriam-webster.com... My opponent may supply and confirm my definitions next round. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Introduction Argument 1. When S1 has a set amount of knowledge amount T pertaining to claim P. 2. If S2 has the same amount of knowledge amount T pertaining to claim P. 3. S1 has intelligence Q. 4. S2 has intelligence Q. (Same Intelligence) 5. A combination of Intelligence and Knowledge about a claim produces a Belief. 6. The combination of Intelligence and knowledge pertaining to claim P produces subject to believe P v ~P (P or ~P) 7. The combination of Intelligence Q and knowledge amount T pertaining to claim P produces subject S1 to believe ~P. ---------------------------------------------------------------- :. S2 believes ~P. If two subjects believe the same thing, then there is no disagreement about whether to deny or accept the claim between the two subjects. ---------------------------------------------------------------- To my opponent. Now con has the opportunity to deny any of my premises. All the fortune. Regards, Vi