Disagreement,the Independence Thesis,and the Value of Repeated Reasoning

The problem of peer disagreement is to explain how you should respond when you and a peer have the same evidence bearing on some proposition $P$ and are equally competent epistemic agents, yet have reached opposite conclusions about $P$. According to Christensen's Independence Thesis, in assessing the effect of your peer's disagreement, you must not rely on the reasoning behind your initial belief. I note that ‘the reasoning behind your initial belief’ can be given either a token or type reading. I argue that the type reading is false, but the token reading is extremely weak.