Conciliationism is a view in the epistemology of disagreement according to which one should revise one's opinions closer to one's peers in the face of epistemic disagreement. Nathan Ballantyne and E.J. Coffman define the view as follows:
Conciliationism: In a revealed peer disagreement over P, each thinker should give at least some weight to her peer’s attitude. That is, each thinker’s confidence should change to some extent: neither thinker is justified in staying exactly as confident as she initially was regarding whether P.Philosopher David Christensen has been a prominent defender of this view. Others have argued in its favor as well. Some have discussed the implications of this view for religious belief.
A standard objection is that conciliationism is self-undermining because most philosophers don't accept it. A number of responses have been offered.
Tyler Cowen and Robin Hanson have argued that many disagreements are "dishonest" because in the face of peer disagreement, people typically favor their own positions for various reasons. This stands in contrast to results like Aumann's agreement theorem suggesting they should update their beliefs in each other's directions.