“…Pritchard (2009Pritchard ( , 2011 describes the difference as being triggered by a Wittgensteinian 'hinge commitment' that cannot be put up for discussion because it is the kind of epistemic entity that supports argumentative discussions in the first place (see Pritchard, 2021;Ranalli, 2020). Lynch and others describe the difference as being triggered by something called "fundamental epistemic principles" (Lynch, 2010(Lynch, , 2012Matheson, 2021;Smith & Lynch, 2021). These are principles that cannot be called into question during an exchange of arguments because they themselves constitute the basis on which we assess the acceptability of arguments and perhaps even the basis on which we recognize something as being an argument in the first place.…”
Section: Deep Disagreements and Why They Mattermentioning
Disagreements come in all shapes and sizes, but epistemologists and argumentation theorists have singled out a special category referred to as deep disagreements. These deep disagreements are thought to pose philosophical and practical difficulties pertaining to their rational resolution. In this paper, I start with a critique of the widespread claim that deep disagreements are qualitatively different from normal disagreements because they arise from a difference in ‘fundamental principles’ or ‘hinge commitments.’ I then defend the following two claims: (1) All disagreements are deep to the extent that they are actual disagreements. This first claim implies, I will argue, that disagreements typically regarded as normal (‘shallow’) can be explained away as misunderstandings or communicative mishaps. (2) The resolution of a disagreement can be rational either through a joint experience of mutually recognized facts or through an exchange of arguments that leads to a reformulation of the disagreement that, in this new form, lends itself to a resolution through a joint experience of mutually recognized facts. I conclude with a reflection on the consequences of these two theses for the idea of deep disagreement and that of rational resolution.
“…Pritchard (2009Pritchard ( , 2011 describes the difference as being triggered by a Wittgensteinian 'hinge commitment' that cannot be put up for discussion because it is the kind of epistemic entity that supports argumentative discussions in the first place (see Pritchard, 2021;Ranalli, 2020). Lynch and others describe the difference as being triggered by something called "fundamental epistemic principles" (Lynch, 2010(Lynch, , 2012Matheson, 2021;Smith & Lynch, 2021). These are principles that cannot be called into question during an exchange of arguments because they themselves constitute the basis on which we assess the acceptability of arguments and perhaps even the basis on which we recognize something as being an argument in the first place.…”
Section: Deep Disagreements and Why They Mattermentioning
Disagreements come in all shapes and sizes, but epistemologists and argumentation theorists have singled out a special category referred to as deep disagreements. These deep disagreements are thought to pose philosophical and practical difficulties pertaining to their rational resolution. In this paper, I start with a critique of the widespread claim that deep disagreements are qualitatively different from normal disagreements because they arise from a difference in ‘fundamental principles’ or ‘hinge commitments.’ I then defend the following two claims: (1) All disagreements are deep to the extent that they are actual disagreements. This first claim implies, I will argue, that disagreements typically regarded as normal (‘shallow’) can be explained away as misunderstandings or communicative mishaps. (2) The resolution of a disagreement can be rational either through a joint experience of mutually recognized facts or through an exchange of arguments that leads to a reformulation of the disagreement that, in this new form, lends itself to a resolution through a joint experience of mutually recognized facts. I conclude with a reflection on the consequences of these two theses for the idea of deep disagreement and that of rational resolution.
“…Por el contrario, la discusión es precisamente acerca de cuál es el principio que debería seguirse, cuáles son los hechos del mundo relevantes a los que habría que mirar para resolver el desacuerdo. En estos casos, el desacuerdo es uno de tipo normativo (Fogelin 1985;Lynch 2010;Smith & Lynch 2020). ( 10), en concreto, contaría como un caso de un desacuerdo metalingüístico normativo.…”
El pensamiento crítico parece ser la piedra de toque de la relevancia de la filosofía, aquello que nos permite mejorar nuestro modo de razonar. El propósito de este artículo es desarrollar una opinión extraordinariamente poco popular que nos parece, sin embargo, obviamente verdadera: El pensamiento crítico no es patrimonio exclusivo de la filosofía; probablemente ni siquiera es la filosofía la disciplina de la que cabe esperarse la contribución más crucial al desarrollo del pensamiento crítico. Sin embargo, la tesis principal de este trabajo no es negativa. Por el contrario, argumentamos aquí que hay ámbitos en los que la filosofía hace contribuciones genuinas y cruciales para el desarrollo del pensamiento crítico. El ejemplo que nosotros exploramos pertenece al ámbito del desacuerdo y del pensamiento conjunto. Para ello, proponemos pasar de una perspectiva exclusivamente individualista del pensamiento crítico a una perspectiva que incluya también la interacción con otros. La filosofía, defendemos, aporta herramientas útiles para pensar con otros, para que nuestros desacuerdos sean fructíferos, “cuidados”. En este sentido, como en otros, la filosofía sí contribuye al desarrollo del pensamiento crítico. El alcance de esta contribución, pensamos, solo puede verse cuando se presta atención a los detalles.
“…For example, it is generally accepted that there is an epistemic principle concerning the reliability of testimony. This norm looks something like this:T‐norm: For agent A, and recognized authority R, if R says that p, then A should ceteris paribus believe p (see Smith & Lynch, 2021, p. 4).…”
Section: Theories Of Deep Disagreementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Deep disagreements are glossed in different ways. As “clashes of perspective” (Kappel, 2021 ); “fundamental” disagreements (Smith & Lynch, 2021 ); disagreements about our “most basic commitments” (Pritchard, 2021 ); as well as disagreements arising out of the “different worldviews” of the disagreeing parties (de Ridder, 2021 ; Hazlett, 2014 ; Matheson, 2021 ).…”
Some disagreements concern our most fundamental beliefs, principles, values, or worldviews, such as those about the existence of God, society and politics, or the trustworthiness of science. These are 'deep disagreements'. But what exactly are deep disagreements? This paper critically overviews theories of deep disagreement. It does three things. First, it explains the differences between deep and other kinds of disagreement, including peer, persistent, and widespread disagreement. Second, it critically overviews two mainstream theories of deep disagreement, the Wittgensteinian account and the Fundamental Epistemic Principle account, before introducing a Hybrid account. Finally, it explores the notion that deep disagreements can be deeper than others.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
