Verbal Metadisputes

Abstract

Many philosophical disputes have become so intractable that philosophers question whether there is a fact of the matter as to which side is right or whether these disputes are entirely verbal. Yet these “metadisputes” have also become intractable. This raises the question: Could they, too, be verbal? What would that even mean? Using tools from modal semantics, I develop a formal framework to help clarify and address these questions. I argue there are no universal diagnostic tests for assessing whether a dispute is verbal and that there may not even be a fact of the matter. I explore how and why that might be the case and what the consequences are for philosophical methodology.