Philosophy Café – Deep Disagreement: Can it be Rationally Resolved? by Dr. Paul Simard Smith

Deep Disagreement: Can it be Rationally Resolved? Dr. Paul Simard Smith, Sessional Lecturer of Philosophy at the U of R Some disagreements are deep because they are resistant to resolution through reasoned deliberation. One kind of deep disagreement occurs when the parties in the dispute endorse conflicting fundamental epistemic principles. Michael Lynch (2010, 2016) has proposed a procedure called the epistemic method game that can be used to resolve this sort of deep disagreement. Lynch’s primary objective is to provide epistemic support for the principles of scientific rationality, including deduction, induction and inference to the best explanation. However, I contend that the epistemic method game leads to broader results. For example, not only does the epistemic method game provide epistemic grounds for the classical principles of scientific rationality, I think it also provides epistemic grounds for the principle that indigenous oral traditions can provide sufficient evidence for claims to aboriginal title. In this talk I characterize some legal and political disagreements over whether indigenous oral traditions can provide sufficient evidence for aboriginal title aboriginal title. Free and all are welcome to attend!

More information at: http://www.uregina.ca/events/philosophy-caf-deep-disagreement-can-it-be-rationally-resolved-by-dr-paul-simard-smith