Epistemic Peerdom

1.) Explain what the author thinks an epistemic peer is. (Explaining Feldman’s notion of an epistemic peer may take a bit of interpretive work since Feldman doesn’t spell it out as explicitly as Kelly does.) 2.) Explain the paper’s thesis (what is the author claiming about disagreement) and reconstruct the argument for the thesis. As you do so, explain how the idea of an epistemic peer is supposed to fit into that argument (it may help to think about why this argument needs to draw on the idea of epistemic peerdom). 3.) In the last paragraph or two of the paper, briefly evaluate the both the idea of epistemic peerdom that this author is using and how the author is appealing to it in the argument. (As you do so, it might help to ask yourself one or more of the following questions: Do I agree with this idea of an epistemic peer? Would I add or subtract anything from the author’s criteria for peerdom? Do I agree that this kind of peer is possible? What are the upshots of my evaluation of this idea of epistemic peerdom on the argument this author is trying to make? Of course, you might have your own preferred questions in mind that will help your evaluation along, and that’s fine.)