What deep disagreements are and are not: A meta‐epistemological analysis

Abstract This paper critically examines how deep disagreements should be conceptualised. Initially, it analyses the most prominent definitions and theories of deep disagreements and assesses their capacity to capture the phenomenon. It argues that although existing accounts provide valuable insights that further our understanding of deep disagreements, they are imprecise for various reasons. Subsequently, the paper contends that these imprecisions motivate the need for a more exhaustive meta‐epistemological reflection regarding how epistemologists should go about defining and/or theorising about deep disagreements. It ends by briefly outlining the options available. We can either continue to defend a given account of deep disagreement and adapt it to address the criticism or argue that “deep disagreement” does not represent an epistemologically interesting class. A third option, the one favoured in the paper, is to defend a pluralistic conception of deep disagreements. A thorough development of pluralism, however, is left to future research.