Argument from Disagreement

Definition

The argument from disagreement is a philosophical position that suggests that the existence of persistent disagreement among knowledgeable individuals about a particular claim implies that there is no objective truth regarding that claim. This notion connects to the broader discussions of skepticism, particularly in how it raises doubts about the reliability of our beliefs and knowledge when faced with differing opinions, especially seen in Ancient Greek skepticism's branches of Pyrrhonism and Academic skepticism.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The argument from disagreement challenges the notion of absolute truth by highlighting how even experts can disagree on a subject.
2. In Pyrrhonism, the emphasis on suspending judgment reflects a direct application of the argument from disagreement, as it fosters an attitude of doubt towards competing claims.
3. Academic skeptics would use the argument from disagreement to support their view that knowledge is uncertain and one should be cautious in asserting beliefs.
4. This argument is significant in debates about moral and epistemological relativism, as it raises questions about whether genuine disagreement implies the absence of objective truths.
5. Philosophers often discuss the argument from disagreement in relation to religious and ethical claims, where deep-seated disagreements persist among well-informed individuals.

Review Questions

• How does the argument from disagreement relate to the central tenets of Pyrrhonism?
  • The argument from disagreement closely aligns with Pyrrhonism's core idea of suspending judgment on beliefs. Pyrrhonists would argue that since knowledgeable individuals often disagree on matters, we should refrain from making definitive claims about truth. This skepticism towards certainty highlights the difficulties in achieving true knowledge, reinforcing the Pyrrhonist stance that one should live without fixed beliefs.
• In what ways does Academic skepticism utilize the argument from disagreement to question knowledge claims?
  • Academic skeptics employ the argument from disagreement as a basis for asserting that knowledge claims cannot be universally accepted. By pointing out that intelligent and educated people often hold opposing views, they argue that this persistent conflict reveals a lack of definitive evidence supporting any particular claim. This leads to their conclusion that without certainty in knowledge, one must adopt a more cautious approach to belief.
• Evaluate how the argument from disagreement influences contemporary discussions about truth and knowledge.
  • The argument from disagreement significantly impacts contemporary discussions about truth and knowledge by encouraging a critical examination of how we validate beliefs. It challenges the assumption that agreement among individuals equates to truth, leading to more nuanced views such as epistemic relativism. In moral and scientific contexts, this skepticism encourages open dialogue and consideration of multiple perspectives, while also raising concerns about the implications of accepting conflicting claims without a clear standard for truth.

Related terms

Pyrrhonism: An ancient school of skepticism founded by Pyrrho, which advocates for suspending judgment on all beliefs due to the inability to determine which beliefs are true.

Academic Skepticism: A school of thought from Plato's Academy that argued for the impossibility of certain knowledge, emphasizing that one should withhold belief in anything that cannot be proven.

Relativism: The philosophical view that truth and morality are not absolute but vary depending on context, culture, or individual perspective.