Argumentatively Navigating Deep Disagreements

ABSTRACT When disagreements cut deep, epistemic agents face a predicament. Although disagreements have been widely hailed for their epistemic benefits, deep disagreements are often plagued with argumentative hurdles preventing the attainment of such epistemic goods. This raises an important question: What should one do when faced with a deep disagreement? This article develops a case‐sensitive framework to help epistemic agents tailor their argumentative course of action to the rich complexity of deep disagreements in hopes of yielding positive epistemic outcomes.