Abstract

It is often suggested that responding to a disagreement with one’s epistemic peer with anything less than conciliation (i.e., a downgrading of one’s conviction in the contested proposition) is incompatible with the demands of intellectual humility. I argue that this is mistaken, and that on the most plausible conception of intellectual humility it can be entirely reasonable to stick to one’s original judgement. What is required by intellectual humility, I claim, is further reflection on one’s epistemic position with regard to the target proposition. Crucially, however, such reflection is not to be understood as being incompatible with continued conviction in the target proposition.