Let us now banish the „art” of discussion. Can we find another sentence on which A and B disagree? It doesn`t look like that — they both know it`s just a screenshot, that it`s sold at an impressive price, and how much skill it takes to type those words with a keyboard or find the words. Therefore, they argue verbally. There are still a few questions we discuss in Verbal Disputes II: is the elimination method perfectly reliable or are there sometimes false positives and negatives? And are there cases where undetected verbal conflicts harm more than provoking unnecessary discussions and wasting academic resources? (Spoiler: Yes.) There are two main ways to resolve a purely verbal quarrel as soon as the different meanings of a key concept are highlighted. First, the various parties could agree not to agree on the use of the term. So this is the second way to resolve a verbal quarrel with two definitions – we choose to adopt a specific definition taking very carefully into account the function it is to serve. If, in the example discussed, you have to choose between the definitions of teachers A and B, which definition will you choose and why? Chalmers proposes the method of elimination, a three-step method for detecting verbal quarrels. Suppose you disagree with a person about the truth of an S-sentence, perhaps due to a disagreement over the meaning of a T-term. Such probably verbal questions and controversies are perhaps more frequent in philosophy, but also in other disciplines.
Here is a well-known example of biology. .