“The problem of warranted objections”

Abstract Disagreement is common. What happens when epistemic peers disagree over some issue p, where A believes p but B believes not-p? Conciliationism says that both A and B should suspend judgment after learning of their disagreement. But suppose A is the first to assert on the matter. B is then the first to learn of their disagreement. Does B have warrant to assert not-p in response? Answering this question leads to a surprising conclusion: the epistemic norm of assertion is incompatible with conciliationism.