Analysis of the Factual Existence of Non-Epistemic Deep Disagreements in Parliamentary Debates
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29393/CF40-5AEDB10005Keywords:
deep non-epistemic, disagreements , factual existence parliamentary debates abortion rational argumentation non-rational persuasive tacticsAbstract
The factual existence of deep disagreements holds an uncertain status in the literature. On the one hand, some authors argue that deep disagreements do exist in practice, maintaining that the involved parties will employ non-rational persuasive tactics to resolve the disagreement. On the other hand, there are those who contend that deep disagreements are only theoretically possible, since practical constraints will push the parties toward finding rational pathways to resolve the disagreement. This article empirically investigates the factual existence of deep disagreements by analyzing parliamentary debates on abortion. The results of the analysis do not allow for a definitive determination of whether the examined debates constitute cases of deep disagreement; rather, they call into question whether the distinction between rational argumentation and non-rational persuasive tactics is explanatorily relevant for investigating deep disagreements.
Downloads
References
Adams, D. M. (2005). Knowing when disagreements are deep. Informal Logic, *25*(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v25i1.1043
Aikin, S. F. (2019). Deep disagreement, the Dark Enlightenment, and the rhetoric of the red pill. Journal of Applied Philosophy, *36*(3), 420–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12342
Ceva, E. (2016). Interactive justice: A proceduralist approach to value conflict in politics. Routledge.
Dare, T. (2014). Disagreement over vaccination programmes: Deep or merely complex and why does it matter? HEC Forum, *26*(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-013-9223-3
Davis, J. K. (2015). Faultless disagreement, cognitive command, and epistemic peers. Synthese, *192*(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0555-6
De Cruz, H., & De Smedt, J. (2013). The value of epistemic disagreement in scientific practice: The case of Homo floresiensis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, *44*(1), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.09.007
Enoch, D. (2009). How is moral disagreement a problem for realism? The Journal of Ethics, *13*(1), 15–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-008-9041-z
Everett, T. J. (2015). Peer disagreement and two principles of rational belief. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, *93*(2), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2014.967791
Feldman, R. (2005). Deep disagreement, rational resolutions, and critical thinking. Informal Logic, *25*(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v25i1.1041
Finocchiaro, M. A. (2011). Deep disagreements: A meta-argumentation approach [Paper presentation]. OSSA Conference, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Fogelin, R. J. (2005). The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic, *25*(1), 3–11. (Reprinted from Informal Logic, *7*(1), 3–11, 1985). https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v25i1.1040
Fuentes-Bravo, C., & Lavín, C. (2014). Elementos teóricos y metodológicos para evaluar la relación entre orientación política y sesgo cognitivo en contextos políticos de desacuerdo profundo. In G. Arroyo, T. Matienzo, R. Marafioti, & C. Santibáñez (Eds.), Explorando el desacuerdo: epistemología, cognición y sociedad (pp. 81–94). Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento.
Fuentes, C. (2012). Las preguntas orales en el Parlamento español. Philologia Hispalensis, *26*(1–2), 129–150.
Gilbert, M. A. (1994). Multi-modal argumentation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, *24*(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839319402400202
Godden, D., & Brenner, W. (2010). Wittgenstein and the logic of deep disagreement. Cogency, *2*(2), 41–80.
Kampf, Z. (2008). The pragmatics of forgiveness: Judgments of apologies in the Israeli political arena. Discourse & Society, *19*(5), 577–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508092238
Kampf, Z. (2015). The politics of being insulted: The uses of hurt feelings in Israeli public discourse. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, *3*(1), 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.3.1.05kam
Kappel, K. (2012). The problem of deep disagreement. Discipline Filosofiche, *22*(2), 7–25.
Lynch, M. P. (2010). Epistemic circularity and epistemic incommensurability. In A. Haddock, A. Millar, & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Social epistemology (pp. 262–277). Oxford University Press.
Lynch, M. P. (2016). After the spade turns: Disagreement, first principles and epistemic contractarianism. International Journal for the Study of Skepticism, *6*(2–3), 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1163/22105700-00602007
Martin, B. (2019). Searching for deep disagreement in logic: The case of dialetheism. Topoi, *40*(5), 1127–1136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-019-09660-7
Philips, D. (2008). Investigating the shared background required for argument: A critique of Fogelin's thesis on deep disagreement. Informal Logic, *28*(2), 86–101. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v28i2.542
Pritchard, D. (2011). Epistemic relativism, epistemic incommensurability, and Wittgensteinian epistemology. In S. D. Hales (Ed.), A companion to relativism (pp. 266–285). Wiley-Blackwell.
Ranalli, C. (2021). What is deep disagreement? Topoi, *40*(5), 983–998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-019-09648-3
Siegel, H. (2013). Argumentation and the epistemology of disagreement [Paper presentation]. OSSA Conference, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Strapparava, C., & Valitutti, A. (2004). WordNet-Affect: An affective extension of WordNet. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 1083–1086).
van Dijk, T. A. (2010). Political identities in parliamentary debates. In C. Ilie (Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp. 29–56). John Benjamins Publishing.
Waldron, J. (1999). Law and disagreement. Oxford University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On certainty (G. E. M. Anscombe & G. H. von Wright, Eds.; D. Paul & G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Blackwell.
Woods, J. (1996). Deep disagreements and public demoralization. Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning (pp. 650–662).
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
