Lynch writes about what he calls “discursive political dissent,” that is, dissent that is voiced in the form of an argument and that aims at influencing policy or people’s beliefs about policies. This kind of dissent, Lynch argues, can be epistemically valuable when it brings about positive epistemic consequences in the right kind of circumstances. Not every case of discursive political dissent will bring about these positive consequences, especially given the prevalence of a particular kind of arrogance—epistemic arrogance. Epistemic arrogance in a dissenter’s communicative community can prevent the members of that community from being receptive to the dissent. And this, in turn, can prevent the epistemically positive consequences from obtaining.