Two Species of Merely Verbal Disputes

Abstract

It is common to criticize a debate by alleging that it is a “merely verbal dispute.” But how conclusive would an argument based on such allegations be? This article takes the material‐composition debate as a case study and argues that the merely verbal dispute objection is less decisive than one might expect. While assessing the dialectical effectiveness of the mere‐verbality move, the article also tries to mark some progress in the philosophical understanding and appreciation of the phenomenon itself of merely verbal disputes. Its contribution consists in shedding light on a distinction between the “faultlessness” and “faultiness” of a merely verbal dispute.

Metatheories of disagreement: Introduction

“…Merely verbal disputes are characterized in the literature as disputes where the parties do not actually disagree about the subject matter of their putative dispute; they merely appear to do so. For example, in some cases parties may use the same word but with different meanings, or they may share the same concept while using different words (see Belleri 2018; Jenkins 2014; Vermulen 2018). In contrast, conceptual (or metalinguistic) disputes are disputes explained by different ways of using or formulating concepts (see Belleri 2017; 2018).…”

Thick Concepts and Sociological Research

“…It's not clear what it'd be to get it right. Their disagreements end up being merely semantic or verbal: how to use the English words "language," "culture," "belief," "intelligence," "play," and "morality" (Belleri 2018; Chalmers 2011; Jenkins 2014). 32 I don't wish to participate in these disputes.…”

(Mere) Verbalness and Substantivity Revisited

“…They merely present the appearance of disagreement due to their divergent uses of "billion", 2 and are thus having what many philosophers (like e.g. Balcerak Jackson (2014), Jenkins (2014), Vermeulen (2018) or Belleri (2018)) would describe as a paradigmatic example of a merely verbal dispute. Although there is some controversy about the exact nature of such disputes, it seems fair to say that there is widespread agreement about two conditions: in a merely verbal dispute (i) there is no relevant disagreement between the disputants on the subject matter(s) under discussion, but (ii) the disputants use at least one key expression of their dispute differently.…”