ABSTRACT
What is disagreement, and how can we come to know what disagreement is? Philosophers from nearly every corner of the discipline have investigated disagreement, so answers to the first question aren’t in short supply. Answers to the second question, though, are harder to come by. In this chapter, I outline an approach to the study of disagreement that is modelled on the Canberra Plan. The core idea behind this approach is to determine the nature of disagreement, we should (i) identify a collection of platitudes about disagreement; (ii) Ramsify over them; and then (iii) use available empirical evidence to determine which relations make the resultant Ramsey sentence true. To demonstrate the fruitfulness of this approach, I show how it can be used to deliver a satisfying and empirically-informed account of the nature of taste disagreement.
