The Rational Significance of Reflective Ascent

Jonathan Kvanvig argues that rational disagreement between epistemic peers is unproblematic. He does so in two steps. First, he urges that the contrary view faces a number of serious objections. Second, he proposes a plausible model of disagreement according to which rational disagreement between epistemic peers is sensible. Kvanvig focuses on the cognitive results of reflection and the sufficiency of justification for closing inquiry. He raises some technical difficulties for some kinds of mollificationism-a view bearing considerable similarity to the view defended by Feldman-and even levels charges of self-defeat. He suggests there is something other than evidence which goes into justification: what you make of the evidence.