On the range of views on the epistemic importance of disagreements, Equal Weight View and steadfast View are at opposite ends. While Equal Weight View is quite accommodating, steadfast View argues that clinging to one`s own weapons can be rational in a case of disagreement between peers. In other words, the discovery of a disagreement between peers does not require a doxatic change. While Equal Weight View emphasizes intellectual humility, steadfast View emphasizes having the courage of your convictions. Different motivations for standfast Views can be seen to reject different aspects of Equal Weight View. We have organized the different motivations of the firm vision according to the aspect of the Equal Weight View that it rejects (at least in the first place). It seems that awareness of differences of opinion, at least in many cases, can give a strong reason to think that faith is false. When you knew that your sister thought the piano was in the cave rather than in the living room, you had a good reason to think that he really wasn`t in the living room, because you know very well that your sister is a generally intelligent person who has a proper background experience (she also lived in the house), and is about as honest, open, and good at remembering childhood events as you are. If, in the face of all this, you maintain your conviction that the piano was in the living room, will it be reasonable to keep this faith? Pritchard, D. (2018). Disagreement between beliefs and others.
In C. R. Johnson (Ed.), Voicing dissent: the ethics and epistemology of making disagreement public (pp. 22-39). New York: Routledge. Here are the main theory of knowledge questions for disagreements and not a degree of trust: like the point of view based on justification, the total evidence view lies somewhere between steadfast View and Equal Weight View. Total Evidence View states that in the event of disagreement between peers, one has the right to believe what its overall evidence supports (Kelly 2010). While this may seem like a no-brainer, the central point is an additional statement about the relationship between first-order evidence and higher-order evidence. . . .