The Rational Response to Excessive Confidence

Abstract

Conciliationism holds that it is rational to modify one’s beliefs in the face of disagreement. But extant conciliatory norms yield incorrect results in cases involving excessive confidence —cases in which one’s interlocutors are sure, or almost sure, that their opinions are correct. After explaining the problem of excessive confidence, I show that a Bayesian approach to Conciliationism handles the problem elegantly and effectively. Further, it has desirable—indeed essential—features, including the ability to (i) contend with multiple interlocutors, (ii) deal with gradations in competence, (iii) incorporate ubiquitous interdependence, and (iv) account for critical contextual features of cases of disagreement.