Elgin's Community-Oriented Steadfastness

In recent years, epistemologists have devoted enormous attention to this question: what should happen when two epistemic peers disagree about the truth-value of some proposition? Some have argued that that in all such cases, both parties are rationally required to revise their position in some way. Others have maintained that, in at least some cases, neither party is rationally required to revise her position. In this paper, I examine a provocative and under-appreciated argument for the latter view due to Catherine Z. Elgin (2010, 2012, 2017, and 2018). I defend it against a series of objections, and I then identify some fruitful ways in which her view could be developed further.