A Defense of the (Almost) Equal Weight View

In this paper Stewart Cohen defends the equal weight view (EWV) against objections coming mainly from Thomas Kelly. It argues that contrary to what Kelly claims, the EWV does not fail to take into account the role of non-psychological evidence. The paper argues that the EWV is correct as a theory about how one who is at the rationally correct credence on the evidence should revise in the face of peer disagreement. It offers a more tentative defense of the EWV in cases of peer disagreement where one is at an irrational credence on the original evidence. It also considers the possibility that the EWV is correct only when one is at a rationally correct credence on one's original evidence.