Weight equality is perhaps the most debated opinion on the epistemic importance of differences of opinion. Competing views of peer disputes are better understood as a rejection of different aspects of weight equality, so it is an appropriate place to begin our review. From our point of view, the Equal Weight View is a combination of three assertions: Lynch (2010) itself does not seem to support the fundamental theory of the epistememenic principle of so-called deep disagreement, but to support a stronger version. The strongest version assumes that S and S are deeply divided on P only if P is a fundamental epistemtic principle, and the following condition applies: “Non-arbitration: there is no other epistemical principle that is accepted by both parties [S and S]that would put an end to the disagreement” (Lynch 2010, p. 265 my addition). But even with this revised theory, there are two essential problems. The first problem can be overcome, but the second is bigger; Or I`m going to argue. The first problem is to take into account the fundamentals of normative principles. The second problem is the consideration of non-normative metaphysical disagreements. There is a global conspiracy that tries to deceive scientists, to think that the Earth is much older than it really is, for its own shameful ends. The weather stations used to calculate global temperature readings are not evenly distributed across the planet and their distribution has changed over time.

In the 1850s, there were a small number of weather stations, and the number did not reach the current 3000 degrees until 1951-1990[129] Lynch M (2010) Epistemic Circularity and epistemic disagreement. In: Haddock A, Millar A, Pritchard D (eds) Social epistemology. Oxford University Press, Oxford scientists who oppose the general scientific assessment of global warming, express differing views on the cause of global warming. Some say only that it has not yet been established whether man is the main cause of global warming; others attribute global warming to natural variations; ocean currents increased solar activity or cosmic radiation. The consensus position is that sun exposure may have increased by 0.12 W/m2 since 1750, compared to 1.6 W/m2 for net anthropogenic load. [116] The TAR said: “The combined change in the radiation strength of the two most important natural factors (solar variation and volcanic aerosols) is considered negative for the past two decades, and perhaps for the past four decades.” [117] AR4 does not make direct claims about the recent role of solar stress, but the previous statement is consistent with Figure 4 of the AR4. [Citation required] Feldman R (2005) Deep disagreements, rational solutions and critical thinking. Informal logic 25:12-23 This also refers to the basic desideratum.

This means that the theory must be consistent with the counter-underlying parties, who themselves have rational reasons for their attitude and reasons to doubt the attitude of the other.

Close Menu