Noûs, (Early View), DOI: 10.1111/nous.12135.
A familiar way of supporting skeptical doubts about the beliefs in some area, such as ethics or
religion, is to provide a “debunking argument” against them.1 Another, even more familiar,
way is to appeal to the disagreement that occurs in the area.2 These types of challenge are
often treated separately and there is not much overlap in the literature they have given rise to.
Yet, as they pursue the same conclusion—that the target beliefs are not (fully) justified and
that we should reduce our confidence in them—one might well wonder how they are related.
Are they entirely independent or do they interact in non-trivial and interesting ways? That is
the question I shall explore.