Abstract

This paper has three purposes. The first and main one is to show that certain deep disagreements are rationally resolvable. The procedure of rational reso-lution of these disagreements is the same as the one Duncan Pritchard (2011, 2021) thinks that allows to resolve any deep disagreement. Thus, the second purpose of this paper is to give some reasons to think, against Pritchard, that this procedure only allows to resolve a certain kind of deep disagreements. The third purpose, which is treated as subsidiary of the first one, is to defend the characterization of deep disagreement used here against two alternative cha-racterizations.