Abstract

You learn that you disagree about P with someone who—according to your evidence—should be your equal in discerning whether P. Some argue that rationality requires weighing your judgment and your Peer’s judgment equally. I show that this ‘equal weight view’ requires the undefended stipulation that your evidence suggests zero correlation between your success in initially determining whether P and your success in reevaluating P in the face of Peer Disagreement. I describe a Peer Disagreement in which self-trust is rationally mandated, given that this further stipulation fails. Finally, I suggest that default, asymmetric self-trust in the face of Peer Disagreement is justified, given a reasonable expectation of a baseline correlation between success in initial determinations whether P and success in reevaluations of P in the face of Peer Disagreement.