Hinges, Deep Disagreement and Fixed Points in the Argumentation Logic

In his treatise ‘On Certainty’ (1969) L. Wittgenstein compared the propositions ex- pressing basic principles to the hinges enabling both doubting and justifying knowledge. In 1985 Robert Fogelin proposed the conception of deep disagreement in argumentation analysis and in his description of it he referred to the hinges. We continue Wittgenstein’s hinges metaphor and compare pulling and pushing the door of knowledge to adopting contrary standings about principal issues, which can result in the deep disagreements. We suggest looking at the hinges enabling those door moves as at the fixed points in the extension semantic of the argumen- tation logic. Interpreting the hinges as the fixed points allows viewing rejected arguments as isolated deadlocks of the deep disagreements, or anti-extensions, and opens a possibility for a compromise on the basis of certain extensions. В трактате «О достоверности» (1969) Л. Витгенштейн сравнил предложения, выражающие ключевые принципы знаний людей, с дверными петлями, без которых невозможно ни обосновывать знание, ни сомневаться в нём. В 1985 году Роберт Фогелин предложил понятие глубокого несогласия для анализа аргументации и, описывая его свойства, сослался на дверные петли Витгенштейна. Если продолжить метафору дверных петель Витгенштейна, то, если дверь познания толкают или тянут, это ведет к глубоким разногласиям по принципиальным вопросам. В русле этого мы предлагаем посмотреть на дверные петли как на неподвижные точки в семантике расширения логики аргументации. Это позволяет рассматривать отклоненные аргументы как изолированные тупики глубоких разногласий и открывает возможность для компромисса на основе определённых расширений.

Skeptical Arguments and Deep Disagreement

This paper provides a reinterpretation of some of the most influential skeptical arguments, Agrippa’s trilemma, meta-regress arguments, and Cartesian external world skepticism. These skeptical arguments are reasonably regarded as unsound arguments about the extent of our knowledge. However, reinterpretations of these arguments tell us something significant about the preconditions and limits of persuasive argumentation. These results contribute to the ongoing debates about the nature and resolvability of deep disagreement. The variety of skeptical arguments shows that we must distinguish different types of deep disagreement. Moreover, the reinterpretation of skeptical arguments elucidates that deep disagreement cannot be resolved via argumentation.

Deep Disagreements and Political Polarization

In deep disagreements, parties disagree about relatively fundamental underlying moral or epistemic principles and therefore see each other as less than fully rational or morally subpar. The chapter argues that deep disagreements lead to both cognitive and practical polarization, especially when they concern matters that are central to people’s social identities: deeply disagreeing parties will think less of each other and tend to treat each other worse. This, in turn, entrenches their disagreement even further, resulting in a vicious feedback loop. Support for the claims made here comes from both conceptual connections between deep disagreement and polarization as well as widely established empirical results in psychology and political science.

“I would sooner die than give up”: Huxley and Darwin's deep disagreement

Thomas Henry Huxley and Charles Darwin discovered in 1857 that they had a fundamental disagreement about biological classification. Darwin believed that the natural system should express genealogy while Huxley insisted that classification must stand on its own basis, independent of evolution. Darwin used human races as a model for his view. This private and long-forgotten dispute exposes important divisions within Victorian biology. Huxley, trained in physiology and anatomy, was a professional biologist while Darwin was a gentleman naturalist. Huxley agreed with John Stuart Mill's rejection of William Whewell's sympathy for Linnaeus. The naturalists William Sharp Macleay, Hugh Strickland, and George Waterhouse worked to distinguish two kinds of relationship, affinity and analogy. Darwin believed that his theory could explain the difference. Richard Owen introduced the distinction between homology and analogy to anatomists, but the word homology did not enter Darwin's vocabulary until 1848, when he used the morphological concept of archetype in his work on Cirripedia. Huxley dropped the word archetype when Richard Owen linked it to Plato's ideal forms, replacing it with common plan. When Darwin wrote in the Origin of Species that the word plan gives no explanation, he may have had Huxley in mind. Darwin's preposterous story in the Origin about a bear giving birth to a kangaroo, which he dropped in the second edition, was in fact aimed at Huxley.

On the Significance of Assumptions about Divine Goodness and Divine Ontology for ‘Logical’ Arguments from Evil

Sterba’s Is a Good God Logically Possible? (2019) draws attention to the importance of ethical assumptions in ‘logical’ arguments from evil (LAfEs) to the effect that the existence of (certain types) of evil is incompatible with the existence of a God who is all-powerful and morally perfect. I argue, first, that such arguments are likely to succeed only when ‘normatively relativized’—that is, when based on assumptions about divine goodness that may be subject to deep disagreement. I then argue that these arguments for atheism are also, and more fundamentally, conditioned by assumptions about the ontology of the divine. I criticise Sterba’s consideration of the implications for his own novel LAfE of the possibility that God is not a moral agent, arguing that Sterba fails to recognize the radical nature of this claim. I argue that, if we accept the ‘classical theist’ account that Brian Davies provides (interpreting Aquinas), then God does not count as ‘an’ agent at all, and the usual contemporary formulation of ‘the problem of evil’ falls away. I conclude by noting that the question of the logical compatibility of evil’s existence with divine goodness is settled in the affirmative by classical theism by appeal to its doctrine that evil is always the privation in something that exists of the good that ought to be.

Judging the Justice of the Colombian Final Agreement

This chapter studies the text of the Colombian peace agreement (also known as the Final Agreement), arguing that the justice component of this agreement depends on the extent to which the envisioned transitional process contributes to social transformation. Despite the fact that societies emerging from periods of conflict or repression characteristically try to address past wrongs using processes that are not criminal punishment, there is a deep disagreement as to whether true justice is achieved with alternative measures such as amnesty or a truth commission. To that extent, justice, in transitional circumstances, is not aimed at giving perpetrators what they deserve, but rather in transforming the political relationships among citizens and between citizens and officials, and in doing so in a just manner by treating victims and perpetrators fairly. The chapter then explains that the justice process outlined in the Final Agreement is comprehensive. By drawing on the cases of Northern Ireland and South Africa, it discusses the temporal dimension of transitional justice and the constitutional changes that occur in the pursuit of it.

Deep Disagreement and Patience as an Argumentative Virtue

During a year when there is much tumult around the world and in the United States in particular, it might be surprising to encounter a paper about patience and argumentation. In this paper, I explore the notion of deep disagreement, with an eye to moral and political contexts in particular, in order to motivate the idea that patience is an argumentative virtue that we ought to cultivate. This is particularly so because of the extended nature of argumentation and the slow rate at which we change our minds. I raise a concern about how calls for patience have been misused in the past and argue that if we accept patience as an argumentative virtue, we should hold people in positions of power, in particular, to account.

Expressivism about delusion attribution

In this paper, I will present and advocate a view about what we are doing when we attribute delusion, namely, say that someone is delusional. It is an “expressivist” view, roughly analogous to expressivism in meta-ethics. Just as meta-ethical expressivism accounts for certain key features of moral discourse, so does this expressivism account for certain key features of delusion attribution. And just as meta-ethical expressivism undermines factualism about moral properties, so does this expressivism, if correct, show that certain attempts to objectively define delusion are misguided. I proceed as follows. I start by examining different attempts at defining delusion, separating broadly psychiatric attempts from epistemic ones. I then present a change of approach, according to which we question whether the term “delusion” is in the business of (merely) describing reality. I then support this proposal, first, by borrowing standard lines of argument from meta-ethics (including ontological reluctance, intrinsic motivation, and deep disagreement) but also, by inference to the best explanation of some the features we see when we try to theorise about delusion (namely that it is hard to define, and that our delusion attributions are elicited by a plurality of norms).