1. bookVolume 55 (2018): Issue 1 (September 2018)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2199-6059
ISSN
0860-150X
First Published
08 Aug 2013
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Overcoming Disagreement Through Ordering: Building an Epistemic Hierarchy

Published Online: 06 Dec 2018
Volume & Issue: Volume 55 (2018) - Issue 1 (September 2018)
Page range: 77 - 91
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2199-6059
ISSN
0860-150X
First Published
08 Aug 2013
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

This paper begins with an assessment of the origin of the term ‘deep disagreement’ to reflect fundamental differences in argument procedure and suggests an alternative explanation of such stalemates that may apply in many cases and does lead to a possible resolution strategy, through discussion of the ordering of certain principles, rather than their acceptance or rejection. Similarities are then drawn with disputes which are supported by conflicting expert opinions and I lay out the advantages of seeking to resolve them through the construction of an epistemic hierarchy. It is noted that while such hierarchies may not be easy to build, and are certainly not fool-proof, their importance is in the provision of a mechanism by which an apparently stalled debate can move forward, leading to a better understanding of the conflicting positions, if not full resolution.

Keywords

Christensen, D. (2007). Epistemology of disagreement: the good news. Philosophical Review, 116(2), 187-217.10.1215/00318108-2006-035Search in Google Scholar

Christensen, D. (2009). Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy. Philosophy Compass 4/5 (2009): 756-767.Search in Google Scholar

Christensen, D. & Lackey, J. (Eds.) (2013). The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199698370.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

van Eemeren, F. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Feldman, R. (2006). Epistemological puzzles about disagreement. In. S Heatherington, ed., Epistemology Futures (pp. 216-236). New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. (2011). Deep disagreements: A meta-argumentation approach. In Zenker, F. (ed.). Argumentation: Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA). http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA9/papersandcommentaries/31.Search in Google Scholar

Fogelin, R. (2005). The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic 25(1), 3-11.10.22329/il.v25i1.1040Search in Google Scholar

Godden, D. (2011). Commentary on “Deep disagreements: A meta-argumentation approach” by Maurice Finocchiaro. In Zenker, F. (ed.). Argumentation: Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA). http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA9/papersandcommentaries/31Search in Google Scholar

Godden, D. & Brenner,W. (2010).Wittgenstein and the logic of deep disagreement. Cogency vol. 2, no. 2, 41-80.Search in Google Scholar

Lugg, A. (1986). Deep disagreement and informal logic: No cause for alarm. Informal Logic 8.1: 47-51.Search in Google Scholar

Jehle, D. & Fitelson, B. (2009). What is the “EqualWeight View”? Episteme 2009, 280-293.10.3366/E1742360009000719Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Kelly, T. (2005). The epistemic significance of disagreement. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology 1 (pp. 167-196).Search in Google Scholar

Kelly, T. (2011). Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence. In A. Goldman & D. Whitcomb (Eds.) Social Epistemology: Essential Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Siegal, H. (2013). Argumentation and the epistemology of disagreement. OSSA Conference Archive. Paper 157. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/157.Search in Google Scholar

Wagemans, J. (2011). The Assessment of Argumentation from Expert Opinion. Argumentation 25: 329-339.Search in Google Scholar

Walton, D., Reed, C. & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802034Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo