Investigating the Shared Background Required for Argument: A Critique of Fogelin's Thesis on Deep Disagreement

Abstract

Robert Fogelin claims that interlocutors must share a framework of background beliefs and commitments in order to fruitfully pursue argument. I refute Fogelin’s claim by investigating more thoroughly the shared background required for productive argument. I find that this background consists not in any common beliefs regarding the topic at hand, but rather in certain shared pro-cedural commitments and competencies. I suggest that Fogelin and his supporters mistakenly view shared beliefs as part of the required background for productive argument because these procedural com-mitments become more difficult to uphold when people’s beliefs diverge widely regarding the topic at hand.