Since I expect deep disagreements over whether p will happen, and I expected it before it happened, the (symbolic) disagreement does not put me under pressure to reconcile on the proposed goal. Do I need to change my mind about the sincerity or competence of the challenger? There are, of course, disputes where there is a partisan split and in relation to which such a reaction is justified (think of “Pizzagate” or claims that the Sandy Hook massacre was a “false flag” operation; both theories are almost exclusively on the right). The best explanation for this kind of partisan dissent may indeed be sincerity or competence. Many of those who defend these views are trolls, or what Pritchard (2018) calls “dialectical poseurs,” and don`t really contradict us. Those who are sincere are often under the sway of a toxic ideology that distorts their ability to process evidence. These cases are considered more extreme cases than deep disagreements, because the lie of the claims should be obvious to everyone, regardless of their ideology; Therefore, the best explanation for such disagreements is the sincerity or competence of the parties to the dispute. In her discussion of what she calls “amazing relationships,” Jones (2002) points out that what is considered astonishing to an agent is shaped by his or her background and sometimes by his or her biases. As a result, they could deny someone peer status for illegitimate reasons. It recommends that the credibility of the testimony and the informant be treated independently. However, their concern does not seem to be the product of banning an informant from peerage on the basis of his statement (rightly in my opinion), but a kind of double counting: if we take the disbelief of the report as a basis for dismissing the informant and then referring to the informant`s unreliability in order to further dismiss the statement. This is clearly illegitimate. With common extreme disagreements (standard in the literature, i.e.

if not in real life), if at all, the pressure goes in the other direction: to give the testimony more credibility than it deserves based on the previous perception of the credibility of the whistleblower. .