Everything You Need To Know About Disagreement
How Disagreements Arise
Agreeing
and disagreeing are normal features of human co-existence. When we agree with
ourselves, it is a reflection of our reasonableness. When we disagree, it points
to the fact that we are not always reasonable. Hence, we are neither absolutely
reasonable nor unreasonable.
It
could be said that we are reasonable when we unanimously arrive at the same view
about the truth of a statement while we are not when we disagree with one
another about the truth of a statement.
As
a result of this, we need sufficient evidence, whenever we disagree in order to
arrive at the truth of our respective conclusions.
Where
people are not completely reasonable, there would be disagreements over the
truth-value of statements, and where people are not completely unreasonable,
there would be arguments to resolve their disagreements. Hence, disagreement
breeds arguments among reasonable people while arguments seek to terminate
disgareements.
As
a result of this, we need sufficient evidence, whenever we disagree in order to
arrive at the truth of our respective conclusions.
Where
people are not completely reasonable, there would be disagreements over the
truth-value of statements, and where people are not completely unreasonable,
there would be arguments to resolve their disagreements. Hence, disagreement breeds
arguments among reasonable people while arguments seek to terminate
disgareements.
Another
way by which a disagreement could exist between two people is when both of them
are wrong about the truth value of some statements while each of them believes
that s/he is right.
Three
possible situations could be imagined between two parties concerning any
statement
1. All parties rightly or wrongly hold the same view. There is agreement in this case but there is possibility of mutual error until another party challenges the error and generates disagreement..
2.
The second is when both parties hold opposing views. Here, one party is right
why one is wrong. If the wrong party is not totally unreasonable, an argument
of sufficient strength or evidence should make the party see the truth. This
type of argument is easilly resolvable.
3.
The third is when both partis disagree but both are wrongas to the truth- value
of the statement in question.This is usually difficult to resolve rationally
except a new element enters into the argument.
Types of Disagreements
Apart
from the different ways explained above by which disagreements arise,
disagreements can be classified into four different types namely:
1. Factual Disagreements
2. Verbal Disagreements
3. Evaluative Disagreements
4. Interpretative Disagreements
Factual Disagreements
This
type of disagreement arises due to conflicts over what is the case. The parties
involved have opposing views about fact due to their different beliefs,
different awareness or ways of handling information or data available to them because
of insufficient attention, incompetence, lack of information, wrong inference
or other things.
Resolving
Factual Disagreements
Factual disagreements are resolved by appealing to evidence
and facts, which may be in form of documents, artifacts, object, statistic,
rules, principles, methods, etc. this can be done in practice
(practically/actually) or in principle (theoretically)
1.
Ojo: Lagos is the capital of Ogun state.
Tunji: Impossible! Lagos is the capital of Osun
state.
2.
Moses:The dead live in heaven, which is 100 million
kilometers above the Earth.
Akeem: Never! Dead persons rot in their repective
gaves on earth.
3.
Tola: The current president of Nigeria is a Yoruba
man from Daura
Funmi: What nonsense! The current president is a
Fulani man from Ekiti.
Verbal Disagreements
Verbal
disagreements usually occures when two parties involved in an argument use the
same term, word, concept or notion in different senses. Each believes that the
other is wrong while the other merely uses the same word in another way. In the
real sense of the matter, there is no disagreement. In this disagreement, both parties can be
right.
Resolving
Verbal Disagreement
Once
the meanings or senses in which ambiguous words can be used are confirmed, the
disagreement disappears.
Example Of Verbal Disagreements
Sunday: Science is the investigation of the empirical
world through the method of obervation.
Tunde: That is incorrect: Science is a systematically
organised body of knowledge.
2.
Moses: Tayo is materialistic; she accumulates money,
dresses, fanciful cars and gadgets.
Akeem: How dare you say that someone who believes in
God, immortality of the soul and life after death is materialistic?
3
Sanjo: Banks are always moist, bushy and unsafe in
the night.
Kunle: What rubbish! Banks are always looking tidy
and safe anytime.
Evaluative Ethical
Disagreement
Evaluative
disagreements arise from each person's assessment of persons, objects,
organisations, artistic works (novels, poetry, etc). Human beings have
different interests, desires, orientations, standards and value systems. Hence,
we disagree on the measure or degree of worth of things. Evaluative
disagreements are essentially about axiological or value-laden terms.
There are three types of evaluative disagreements
Ethical,
Aesthetic,
and Pragmatic.
Resolving Evaluative Disagreements
until we reconcile
our differences on the understanding of value-laden terms such as: “good”,
“beautiful” “crucial” “important”, etc
evaluative disagreement may not disappear so easily
Ethics
concerns itself with the study of human conducts with extention into social,
political, professional and institutional activities. The focal term of ethics
is “good.” Other ethical terms are: “bad” “right” “wrong” “just” “unjust”
“ought” “ought not” “fair” “unfair” etc. When any of these terms leads to
disagreement, we have an evaluative ethical disagreement.
Example
Moses: Tunde is good boy; he is very quiet and
unobstructive
Akeem: Tunde? He is a bad boy; he does not relate to
others with warmth and openness; he is an introvert.
Evaluative Aesthetic Disagreements
Aesthetics is the appreciation or evaluation of works of Arts. It involves the use of the words: beautiful, melodious, interesting, disinteresting, fine, ugly, bright, dull, tasty, pleasant, unpleasant, etc. Human beings disagree on their assessment of people or things based on those concepts.
Examples
Sola: That is a pleasant lace material
Sanjo:
What! It appears rather dull and irritating!
Tope: The music is fantastic and soul-lifting.
Bose: It is rather awful and depressing
Pragmatism
has to do with the ability of a thing to work, function or serve a purpose.
Pragmatic evaluation therefore pertains to the assessment of things, persons,
intitutions, programes, policies, etc, based on their ability to perform
functions, work or serve purposes. Such terms as: competent, incompetent,
significant, insignificant, satisfactory, unsatisfactory, commendable,
acceptable, unacceptable, important, unimportant, etc are involved in
evaluative pragmatic disagreement.
Example
Tolu: The policy of “no work, no pay” which the
government introduced against university lecturers, is apt and commendable: it
will force ASSU to call the long strike off.
Funbi: What nonsense! That is the most insignificant
policy ever introduced. It will only prolong the strike.
An
interpretative disagreement is a disagreement over the meaning, purpose, theme,
intention, focus, aim, message of an event, a person's conduct, a project,
programme, literary work, works of arts, policies, laws, status, etc. Its is a
diagreement on the understanding or interpretation of those things.
Examples
Bolu: People are really trooping out to the
registration centres for their voters cards. It is a good indication that they
are politically conscious.
Yomi: That is not true. Everyone is just tired of the
incompetence of the current administration and they want to vote them out by
all means.
Raji: Soyinka's “Death and the King's Horseman” was
written to condemn the traditional act of killing a person with dead kings in
Yoruba Land.
Dolu: Never! It was written to showcase the
significance of African cultural practices.
The first step in resolving an interpretative disagreement is to determine what a good or acceptable interpretation is. The following are criteria for determining what counts as a good interpretation:
1.
The Plausibility criterion: A good interpretation must be plausible.
2.
The Consistency Criterion: A good interpretation must be consistent. It
must not be faulty.
3. The Coherence criterion: A good interpretation must not be internally self-contradictory. 4. The Aesthetic Criterion: A good interpretation must add a new and attractive idea to existing interpretations
5.
The Simplicity Requirment: If there are more than one good
interpretations, the simplest should be preferred.
Comments
Post a Comment