CFP: Special issue of Cuadernos de Filosofía "Deep Disagreements: Elucidations and Explorations"

Submission deadline: October 15, 2021

Topic areas


Call for Abstracts for special issue of Cuadernos de Filosofía (Universidad de Concepción, Chile):

Deep Disagreements: Elucidations and Explorations

Guest editor: Dr. Victoria Lavorerio (University of the Republic, Uruguay).

Deadline: October 15, 2021

In his now classic 1985 article, the American philosopher Robert Fogelin provocatively states that “there are disagreements, sometimes on important issues that, by their nature, are not subject to rational resolution” (Fogelin, 1985; 7). He calls these disagreements "deep disagreements." But even if deep disagreements can be rationally resolved (as, contra Fogelin, the vast majority of philosophers believe), the parties face specific challenges when attempting to resolve deep disagreements that do not arise with other types of disagreements. For example, the parties to a deep disagreement not only differ on a factual issue, but also disagree on what information constitutes evidence or who the epistemic authorities are. Therefore, even if the parties engage patiently in a rational dialogue defending their respective positions, their arguments will be mostly ineffective in convincing their counterpart. This situation tends towards a progressive polarization of the controversy, which, in turn, gradually erodes any hopes to achieve consensus.

Since the publication of Fogelin's paper, argumentation and informal logic theorists have debated extensively about the nature and resolution of deep disagreements. Their main concern has been whether, as Fogelin claims, there are disagreements that argumentation cannot resolve and, if so, what would be the nature of this limitation. In contrast, the interest of analytic epistemology, both for Fogelin's article and for the notion of deep disagreement in general, is much more recent and focuses mainly on the relationship with two other issues: peer disagreements and epistemic relativism. Adding to the study of these argumentative and epistemological dimensions is the growing exploration of deep disagreements in specific areas, such as religion, science or ethics. There is, therefore, a rich growing literature to draw on when discussing deep disagreements.

When it comes to literature in Spanish, however, the situation is very different. Except for notable entries (Arroyo et al. 2014), there is no source of quality material on deep disagreements in Spanish. This special issue aims to begin to fill this gap. To this end, we call for abstract submission of philosophical articles on deep disagreements. To start covering territory, we propose two nodes of concerns. On the one hand, under the heading "elucidations" we intend to analyse crucial technical issues of deep disagreements, which are the source of ongoing debate. Examples of these are:

•         What are deep disagreements? How are they different from non-deep disagreements?

•         Are deep disagreements factually possible or are they only theoretically possible?

•         Can we resolve deep disagreements rationally? If we can, how? If we can't, why not?

Furthermore, under the heading “explorations”, we invite reflection on the connections we can find between the study of deep disagreements and other areas. Examples of these are:

•         Deep disagreements in science, law, religion or ethics.

•         Scepticism, relativism, and deep disagreements.

•         Deep disagreements between epistemic peers.

•         Deep disagreements and polarization, scientific denialism, misinformation and propaganda.

•         Deep disagreements online.

We welcome abstracts between 800 and 1200 words on deep disagreements, in Spanish or English (if selected, the paper will be translated into Spanish). The deadline for submitting abstracts is October 15, 2021. Abstracts must be anonymized (without name or any information that can reveal the identity of the author or authors), must have keywords (between 3 and 5) and the bibliography that corresponds (not included in the final word count).

We will communicate whether the abstract was accepted no later than November 30, 2021. From there, the authors will have four months to submit the complete paper (max. 10,000 words). It is important to emphasize that acceptance of an abstract does not imply acceptance of the paper. Full papers will be evaluated by external examiners in a double-blind review process. Reviewers may recommend publishing the article, modifying it or rejecting its publication.

Abstracts should be sent to the email address of Cuadernos de Filosofía: [email protected]. In the body of the email, please indicate the full name of the author/authors, affiliation and name of the paper.

For any doubt or inquiry, please write to Victoria Lavorerio at [email protected]


Arroyo, G.; Matienzo, T.; Marafioti, R.  Santibáñez, C. (2014) Explorando el desacuerdo: epistemología, cognición y sociedad (editors). Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento. 

Fogelin, R. (1985/2005). The Logic of Deep Disagreements. Informal Logic, 7, no. 1: 1–8.

Supporting material

Add supporting material (slides, programs, etc.)