Abstract:
What might it mean to make progress in dialogue across difference, even though the dialogue never reaches any consensus? This paper develops a number of criteria for judging what I call ‘collective epistemic progress’ in the face of seemingly irreconcilable differences. Although it might seem plausible to judge collective epistemic progress by the strength of the dialogue community, by how long the conversation is continued, or by how close we have moved towards consensus or the truth, I argue that these fail to provide serviceable epistemic criteria. However, I go on to argue that this does not imply that we must reject the possibility of any epistemic progress in dialogue across difference. The paper demonstrates how we might judge progress using the criteria of reaching mutual understanding, furthering the one distributed process of inquiry or deliberation, reaching inquiry milestones, and by finding procedural consensus.