, Volume 80, Supplement 1, pp 167–189 | Cite as

A Puzzle About Disputes and Disagreements

  • Hans RottEmail author
Original Article


The paper addresses the situation of a dispute in which one speaker says ϕ and a second speaker says not-ϕ. Proceeding on an idealising distinction between “basic” and “interesting” claims that may be formulated in a given idiolectal language, I investigate how it might be sorted out whether the dispute reflects a genuine (substantive) disagreement, or whether the speakers are only having a merely verbal (terminological) dispute, due to their using different interesting concepts. I show that four individually plausible principles for the determination of the nature of a dispute are incompatible. As an example, I discuss the question whether Sarai lied in the story told in Genesis 12.


Basic Fact Actual World Basic Belief Central Idealisation Linguistic Community 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I would like to thank audiences in Kirchberg am Wechsel, Lisbon, Leipzig, Prague, Regensburg, Erfurt, Amsterdam and Zürich, the participants of my research seminar in Regensburg, Delia Belleri, Johannes Marti, Vladimir Svoboda, Inga Vermeulen and in particular my commentator Michel Meliopoulos for very helpful discussions on presentations of earlier incarnations of this paper.


  1. Andreas, H. (2008). Another solution to the problem of theoretical terms. Erkenntnis, 69, 315–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balcerak Jackson, B. (2014). Verbal disputes and substantiveness. Erkenntnis, 79(Supplement 1), 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber, A. (2010). Idiolects. In: Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
  4. Belleri, D. (2014). Disagreement and dispute. Philosophia, 42, 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bird, A. (2003). Kuhn, nominalism, and empiricism. Philosophy of Science, 70, 690–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cappelen, H., & Hawthorne, J. (2009). Relativism and monadic truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carson, T. L. (2010). Lying and deception: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chalmers, D. J. (2011). Verbal disputes. Philosophical Review, 120, 515–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Churchill, W. S. (1950). The grand alliance, vol. 3 of The Second World War. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  10. Coppock, E., & Beaver, D. I. (2014). Principles of the exclusive muddle. Journal of Semantics, 31, 371–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dummett, M. (1975). What is a theory of meaning? In: S. Guttenplan (Ed.), Mind and language. Clarendon Press: Oxford, pp. 97–138. Quoted from the reprint in M.D. The seas of language. Oxord: Clarendon Press, 1993, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
  12. Eichler, B. L. (1997). On reading Genesis 12:10–20. In M. Cogan, B. L. Eichler, & J. H. Tigay (Eds.), Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic studies in honor of Moshe Greenberg (pp. 23–38). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
  13. Fallis, D. (2009). What is lying? Journal of Philosophy, 106, 29–56.Google Scholar
  14. Grim, P. (2004). What is a contradiction? In G. Priest, J. Beall, & B. Armour-Garb (Eds.), The law of non-contradiction: New philosophical essays (pp. 49–72). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Higginbotham, J. (2008). Languages and idiolects: Their language and ours. In E. Lepore & B. C. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of language (pp. 140–148). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hoffmeier, J. K. (1992). The wives’ tales of Genesis 12, 20 and 26 and the covenants at Beer-Sheba. Tyndale Bulletin: Organ of the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical and Theological Research and of Tyndale House, 43, 81–100.Google Scholar
  17. Holy Bible. (2002). English Standard Version Anglicised. Collins: London.Google Scholar
  18. Jenkins, C. (2014). Merely verbal disputes. Erkenntnis, 79(Supplement 1), 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Joosten, J. (2012). Abram and Sarai in Egypt. In L. Kogan (Ed.), Babel und Bibel: Annual of ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament, and Semitic studies (Vol. 6, pp. 369–381). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
  20. Kukla, A. (1996). The theory-observation distinction. Philosophical Review, 105, 173–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacFarlane, J. (2014). Assessment sensitivity: Relative truth and its applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mahon, J. E. (2008a). The definition of lying and deception. In: Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
  23. Mahon, J. E. (2008b). Two definitions of lying. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 22, 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of ‘meaning’. In: Mind, language and reality, vol. 2 of Philosophical papers. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 215–271. Quoted from Readings in knowledge and mind, eds. Heimar Geirsson and Michael Losonsky. Blackwell: Oxford 1996, pp. 157–198.Google Scholar
  25. Putnam, H. (1986). Meaning holism. In L. E. Hahn & P. A. Schilpp (Eds.), The philosophy of W.V. Quine (pp. 405–426). Salle: Open Court La.Google Scholar
  26. Putnam, H. (1987). Meaning holism and epistemic holism. In K. Cramer, H. Fulda, R.-P. Horstmann, & U. Pothast (Eds.), Theorie der Subjektivität (pp. 251–277). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  27. Rott, H. (2014). Two concepts of plausibility in default reasoning. Erkenntnis, 79 (Supplement 6), 1219–1252.  10.1007/s10670-013-9548-y.
  28. Sankey, H. (2000). The language of science: Meaning variance and theory comparison. Language Sciences, 22, 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stojanovic, I. (2007). Talking about taste: Disagreement, implicit arguments, and relative truth. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 691–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stokke, A. (2013). Lying and asserting. Journal of Philosophy, 110, 33–60.Google Scholar
  31. Wittgenstein, L. (2005). The big typescript: TS 213. German-English scholars’ edition. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations