We should not require participants in a purely verbal confrontation to believe that they do not agree. On the one hand, they simply cannot be reflective enough to believe it. This should not deny that it is possible to further improve the MVD by clarifying more clearly the type of statement to be reported by the phrase of the “owing to” explanation marker in MVD. It seems that there may still be cases similar to the Fred/Freda case, where there is a strange explanation link between the different languages of the parties and the emergence of differences of opinion, but in which we do not want to conclude that the parties are content with a verbal quarrel. However, we have at least made progress in excluding some of the more immediate problems of this type. Can you give your own examples of factual and verbal conflicts? There are two main ways to resolve a purely verbal quarrel when talking about the different meanings of a key term. First, the various parties may not agree on the use of the term. For example, Teachers A and B might agree that they have provided two different pre-quote definitions of “best student,” and that both are legitimate, and they may agree that Cindy is the best student under one interpretation and that Betty is the best student among another interpretation. Philosophers are willing to talk about verbal conflicts, usually without much thought or explicit reflection on who they are, and much methodological significance is associated with the discovery of the question of whether an argument is only verbal or not.
Right now, metaphilososophical progress is being made towards a clearer understanding of what exactly is needed to make something simply a verbal quarrel. This paper deals with this growing literature, highlights some problems related to existing approaches and develops a new proposal based on its strengths. Verbal conflicts often arise from factual conflicts where differences of opinion are linked to differences of opinion on facts, not on importance. If anyone thinks That Sydney is the capital of Australia and others disagree, the disagreement is objective. This leaves the possibility that the other conditions will not be met. For example, there could be a prima facie dispute that involves acting on insignificant words, for which the appearance of differences of opinion is due to means other than the different uses of language.