In this paper, I argue that the two most common views of how to respond rationally to peer disagreement—the Total Evidence View (TEV) and the Equal Weight View (EWV)—are both inadequate for substantial reasons. TEV does not issue the correct intuitive verdicts about a number of hypothetical cases of peer disagreement. The same is true for EWV. In addition, EWV does not give any explanation of what is rationally required of agents on the basis of sufficiently general epistemic principles. I will then argue that there is a genuine alternative to both views—the Preemption View (PV)—that fares substantially better in both respects. I will give an outline and a detailed defense of PV in the paper.

中文翻译：

---

如何理性地应对同伴的分歧：先发制人的观点

在本文中，我认为，关于如何合理地应对同伴分歧的两种最普遍的看法-总证据视图（TEV）和等权重视图（EWV）-由于充分的理由而都不足够。TEV并未针对许多同伴异议的假设案例发布正确的直观判断。EWV也是如此。此外，EWV并没有根据足够普遍的认识原则对代理商的合理要求做出任何解释。然后，我将争辩说，这两种观点有一种真正的替代选择-抢占观点（PV）–在这两个方面的表现都要好得多。我将在本文中概述PV并概述其详细内容。