If Hume is right and makes many philosophical conflicts live, a lack of agreement on the meaning and use of words, it would be great to have some kind of tool to detect these verbal disputes, so that we can avoid them and focus on the real issues. „On issues that have been discussed and challenged with great zeal since the earliest origin of science and philosophy, it is reasonable to expect that at least the meaning of all notions among the bellicose will be agreed upon; and over the course of two thousand years, our questions have been able to move from words to the real and real subject of controversy. Indeed, how easy can it be to give precise definitions of the terms used in the reasoning and to make those definitions, not the simple sound of words, the subject of future examination and examination? But if we look at it more closely, we can come to a completely opposite conclusion. Just because a controversy has long been and remains indecisive, we can assume that there is some ambiguity in the expression and that the belligerents have different ideas about the terms used in the controversy. This nicely captures how many of us feel when faced with quarrels in the last section. And that gives us at least a very crude guideline for the search for verbal conflict, that is, that both sides feel they do not disagree. Unfortunately, the judgments on whether two parties actually disagree do not always come together, as evidenced by the species problem and the debate over the Theseus ship. Can we do better than what we intuitively feel for an argument? If this is true, much of the debate on the ontology and metaphysics of art is completely misdirected and relies on the confusion of semantic questions with factual questions. Many other debates could be in the same boat and should be abandoned instead of resolving them. But there are sometimes substantive quarrels nearby. „What free will is,“ for example, may be a purely verbal matter, but for any idea of free will, it may turn out to be a substantive issue, whether it is necessary for legal or perhaps moral liability.
However, there are situations in which the parties involved must choose a particular interpretation. For example, there may be only one prize to be awarded to the best student, so it is necessary to choose between the two definitions to decide whether Cindy or Betty should receive the award. This is therefore the second way to resolve a verbal dispute with two definitions – we opt for a precise definition by looking very carefully at the function it should serve. If, in the example on the exam, you have to choose between teacher definitions A and B, which you will choose the definition of and why? Verbal conflicts often arise from factual conflicts where differences of opinion are linked to differences of opinion on facts, not on importance. If anyone thinks That Sydney is the capital of Australia and others disagree, the disagreement is objective. I intend to take the Utterer in the sense that I think Grice is trying to capture his Utterer in 1968 and 1969. (But while I use the phrase „Utterer`s meaning“ crudely, I don`t mean to fully support Grice`s presentation of the meaning of the Utterer.) Sidelle, A. (2007). The method of verbal dispute. Philosophical themes, 35 (1/2), 83-113.
Hirsch, E. (2005). The physical-physico-physico-ontology of verbal and common sense conflicts.