If I believe p and someone who is equally rational, has access to the same evidence and spends a similar time as me looking at it believes not p, should I doubt p ? This is the question of disagreement and there are two ways to respond to it. The conciliation view is that disagreement with an "epistemic peer" (someone who has approximately equal intelligence, expertise and exposure to the evidence as oneself) obliges one to lower confidence in p. The steadfast view, on the other hand, is that there is no obligation to lower one's confidence in p.