ABSTRACT
The puzzle about deep disagreement is whether reasoned argument can work at all in them. There is a widely held view, perhaps at the core of deliberative views of democracy, and certainly central to educational programs emphasizing critical thinking, that well-run argument is at least never pointless, and often even productive. A famous argument for pessimism is given by Robert Fogelin in his essay, "The Logic of Deep Disagreements." The pessimist's policy presumes that when disputes seem irresolvable, the only alternative is to simply defeat or at least neutralize one's opponents. Fogelin holds that "deep disagreements cannot be resolved through the use of argument, for they undercut the conditions essential to arguing". A different optimistic strategy is to reject Fogelin's premise. One might say that argument isn't only about resolving disagreements. An argument, as an exercise of manifesting our rationality, may improve our understanding of our own views and those of others.
