Nor will differences of opinion give rise to serious doubts if an independent assessment of the disputes gives only a very weak reason to believe that the references of the rival in dispute or his own exceed. On the contrary, meaningful conciliation will usually only be necessary if there are sufficiently strong positive reasons that are independent of trust in the other party. Christensen`s tabulation bill case, where non-consenting friends have meaningful outcome data that indicates they are equally reliable in mental mathematics, is an example where disputants have strong independent reasons to view the other person as epistemic peers, resulting in considerable conciliatory pressure. . . .