The reasonable disagreement in a peer horizon

Abstract

The objectives of this paper are two: (a) to integrate the notion of epistemic peer in terms of the "peer horizon" into the debate on the rationality of positions in disagreement; (b) argue that both the firm point of view and the conciliatory or the skeptic are effective in the handle of our attributions of knowledge, being, the alternation of these positions, a rational attitude who depend on whether the disagreement is first, second or third person. It is concluded that the rationality of the choices about the positions in disagreement rest on the strength of our character at the time of undertaking certain discussions, either with other peers or with ourselves.