Can you give your own examples of factual and verbal conflicts? Sidelle, A. (2007). The method of verbal dispute. Philosophical themes, 35, 83-113. However, there are situations in which the parties involved must choose a particular interpretation. For example, there may be only one prize to be awarded to the best student, so it is necessary to choose between the two definitions to decide whether Cindy or Betty should receive the award. This is therefore the second way to resolve a verbal dispute with two definitions – we opt for a precise definition by looking very carefully at the function it should serve. If, in the example on the exam, you have to choose between teacher definitions A and B, which you will choose the definition of and why? So who`s right and who`s wrong? In a way, both teachers are right because they seem to be working with two different definitions of „best students.“ For Teacher A, the best student is the one with the highest average score. For Teacher B, the best student is someone with the highest number of A grades.
Clearly, the student who meets the first definition should not be the same as the student who meets the second definition. This is an example of a purely verbal confrontation where the obvious disagreement is not due to a disagreement on the facts, but to a different understanding of the meaning of a key concept or concept. A related point: Williamson (2007) (Chapter 4) articulates a radically externalistic view of the linguistic meaning of logical constants; One of the motivations is that it allows us to view quarrels over logical truth and coherence as real quarrels, not cases where the parties are simply passing on to each other. But for the reasons that have just been praised, such a view does not automatically guarantee the non-verbality of such disputes. In this case too, Kermit and Gonzo are not divided on the meaning of the symbolic expression of the „metaphysics“ of the third, so that their dispute should always be seen as a case of disagreement? Not necessarily: Kermit and Gonzo could both believe that the symbolic expression of the third has the meaning of the philosopher, when it may not be the meaning that the third party intends to convey. The dispute will still be only verbal as long as Kermit and Gonzo make conflicting assumptions about what third party interested in communicating. (Thanks to an anonymous referee for raising this point.) Hirsch (2011b), 228-229. Hirsch changed his relationship somewhat in response to the concern for anti-individualism in the style of the castle (see Castle of 1979). The concern seems to be that, while anti-individualism is true, the better overall interpretation of the various parties does not reflect the actual social meanings of their statements. But change is not necessary: as we have seen, the facts of interpretation do not need to follow the literal meanings of the parties` words to provide a good basis for the diagnosis of mere verbality.