conciliationism


Also found in: Wikipedia.

conciliationism

the belief in and use of conciliation in an argument. — conhciliationist, n. — conciliatory, adj.
See also: Argumentation
-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
(3) Similarly, Professor Alex Stein argues that the solipsistic view is "fundamentally incompatible with the epistemological principles of rational fact-finding." (4) This emerging critique, which we will call "judicial conciliationism"--for the reason that it instructs judges to react in a conciliatory fashion almost whenever encountering judicial disagreement--makes a powerful point against the status quo.
In the literature on peer disagreement this position is known as "conciliationism." (14)
The instinct for conciliationism is easiest to see in cases of an easily falsifiable disagreement.
(18) But conciliationism extends further, to differences in perceptual judgment as well.
(19) Now to be sure, conciliationism is subject to various objections.
(43.) This proposal is known as "strong Conciliationism." See Christensen, Disagreement as Evidence, supra note 4, at 759.
It begins by arguing that--contrary to popular opinion--permissivism supports at least a moderate version of conciliationism. It then formulates a worry for permissivism.
From late July, non-Jewish workers in Smolensk who were faced with declining real wages and worsening working and living conditions increasingly rejected the socialists' conciliationism in favor of the more strident Left SR and Bolshevik positions on class conflict.
Conciliationism is the view that disagreement with qualified disputants gives us a powerful reason for doubting our disputed views, a reason that will often be sufficient to defeat what would otherwise be strong evidential justification for our position.
These arguments speak against conciliationism, but the article then goes on to defend a conciliatory view about well-grounded belief: when you believe p, and you have good reason to believe that your epistemic peer disagrees with you, you are not justified in believing p because that belief is no longer well-grounded.
Conciliationism and Uniqueness, NATHAN BALLANTYNE and E.
(1) Conciliationism: In a revealed peer disagreement over P, each thinker should give at least some weight to his peer's attitude.