The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement
Abstract
Looking back on it, it seems almost incredible that so many equally educated, equally sincere compatriots and contemporaries, all drawing from the same limited stock of evidence, should have reached so many totally different conclusions—and always with complete certainty.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Copernicus's heliocentric model and Einstein's theory of relativity both constituted radical departures from the dominant paradigms of their times.”
From Conciliationism as Epistemic Concession in Religious Peer Disagreement (2025) · cites this paper as [17]
In the citing paper
“Had they chosen to weaken their commitments for the sake of conciliating with prevailing views, the revolutionary scientific advancements they initiated might never have occurred.”
From Conciliationism as Epistemic Concession in Religious Peer Disagreement (2025) · cites this paper as [17]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pittard, J. (2015) · The Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.1093/pq/pqv022 · Cited by 69
Standpoint Epistemology and Epistemic Peerhood: A Defense of Epistemic Privilege
TOOLE, B. (2024) · Journal of the American Philosophical Association · doi:10.1017/apa.2023.6 · Cited by 42
Conciliationism as Epistemic Concession in Religious Peer Disagreement
Aslantatar, N. (2025) · İlahiyat Tetkikleri Dergisi · doi:10.29288/ilted.1657637 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Kelly, T.
- Corresponding author
- Kelly, Thomas
- ORCID
- Kelly, Thomas
- Venue
- Oxford Studies In Epistemology
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressOxford
- Published
- 2005-12-01
- Pages
- 167-196
- OpenAlex
- W4388212948
- Cited by
- 598
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 95 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 46.62
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Keywords
- epistemic disagreement, epistemic justification, peer disagreement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
