Merely Verbal Disagreement Example

So who`s right and who`s wrong? In a way, both teachers are right because they seem to be working with two different definitions of “best students.” For Teacher A, the best student is the one with the highest average score. For Teacher B, the best student is someone with the highest number of A grades. Clearly, the student who meets the first definition should not be the same as the student who meets the second definition. This is an example of a purely verbal confrontation where the obvious disagreement is not due to a disagreement on the facts, but to a different understanding of the meaning of a key concept or concept. This is not entirely resolved: for example, if we were externalists of the right kind of beliefs that may have been inspired by Burge in 1979, we might end up thinking that what a human being believes is very closely related to what his words mean in public language. That is why I should also point out that, in this passage, I have content of faith in a way much more closely related to the importance of the pronunciation of the subject than the meaning of those words. (In fact, I tend to think that there are many terms of “content” that apply to beliefs, and that there are only two.) Thanks to David Chalmers and Matthew Kennedy for discussing this point. Indeed, this is a case in which I believe that the term “simple verbal confrontation” is applicable in some contexts, but not in others. For more information, see point 5 below. Verbal conflicts often arise from factual conflicts where differences of opinion are linked to differences of opinion on facts, not on importance. If anyone thinks That Sydney is the capital of Australia and others disagree, the disagreement is objective. We should not require participants in a purely verbal confrontation to believe that they do not agree.

On the one hand, they simply cannot be reflective enough to believe it. Philosophers are willing to talk about verbal conflicts, usually without much thought or explicit reflection on who they are, and much methodological significance is associated with the discovery of the question of whether an argument is only verbal or not. Right now, metaphilososophical progress is being made towards a clearer understanding of what exactly is needed to make something simply a verbal quarrel. This paper deals with this growing literature, highlights some problems related to existing approaches and develops a new proposal based on its strengths. Hirsch, E. (2005). The physical-ontology ontology of verbal and common sense conflicts. Philosophy and phenomenological research, 70, 67-98. There are two main ways to resolve a purely verbal quarrel when talking about the different meanings of a key term. First, the various parties may not agree on the use of the term.

For example, Teachers A and B might agree that they have provided two different pre-quote definitions of “best student,” and that both are legitimate, and they may agree that Cindy is the best student under one interpretation and that Betty is the best student among another interpretation. This leaves the possibility that the other conditions will not be met. For example, there could be a prima facie dispute that involves acting on insignificant words, for which the appearance of differences of opinion is due to means other than the different uses of language. Thanks to Jonathan Schaffer for making me think about these cases.

Posted in Uncategorized
Bookmark the permalink.