Arguing, Arguments, and Deep Disagreements

Peter Davson-Galle

Abstract


In response to earlier papers in Informal Logic by Robert Fogelin and Andrew Lugg, this paper explores the issue of whether disagreement could ever be so deep that it defied rational resolution. Contra Lugg, I agree with Fogelin that such unresolvable disagreement is possible and, contra Fogelin, I suggest that the focus of such disagreement can be quite Iimited-a single proposition
rather than a whole system of beliefs. I also suggest that emphasising arguing as a human practice rather than arguments as a structure of propositions
is unhelpful to consideration of these issues.

Keywords


Premises, background assumptions, non-rational disputes, deep disagreements

Full Text:

PDF


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v14i2.2537

ISSN: 0824-2577