Do some kinds of disagreements disprove the idea that one side is right and the other wrong?
Max Nugent
At first, the assertion that there are some types of disagreements that can disprove that one side is right and the other wrong – which would seem to abolish the very notions of truth and falsity – seem absurd. 1 However, a number of arguments do exist that seem to support the claim. Supporters cite clear-cut examples where both sides have claimed to be solely correct, but in the end no victor can be ascertained. Perhaps we are much the same – vigorously supporting those things which we believe to be true, whereas in truth (or as close to the truth as can be achieved in a strictly relative world) neither side is correct, or indeed incorrect. Nonetheless, opponents deride this claim as obviously untrue. They claim that supporters of the titular claim have conflated matters of opinion and those of fact. Perhaps disagreements over opinion are relative, they concede, but facts are facts. If you disagree, then you are incorrect. Relativists sometimes make use of the following example in defence of their claims: Peter (P) believes that Mozart was the best composer of all time, while Harry (H) believes that this accolade belongs to Bach. Both are convinced that they are right. Almost everyone would agree that neither are safely right, or perhaps that both are jointly right. Thus, relativists say, all arguments follow this same basic pattern. But how can both P and H, with opposing arguments, be correct? Relativists claim that both claims, in essence, exist in different domains (much like two non-overlapping Venn diagram circles). The claim ‘Mozart is the best composer of all time’ in effect should be ‘Mozart is the best composer of all time [in my domain]’ with H's claim similarly stating that ‘Bach is the best composer of all time [in my domain]’. Thus, the two do not contradict each other. In this case 'domain' is equivalent to 'opinion'. In many cases, where disagreements are more widely argued, the domain can be the opinion of a group of people, or even the outlook of a particular society. Another example oft cited by relativists is that of history. While historians tend to take a more nuanced look at their work, and do not claim to be espousing solely the truth and nothing but the truth, many in the past have believed wholeheartedly in histories that are now largely discredited. Thus, what people have studied and believed about the past often is not the case at all, and the history we study today will almost certainly have been transformed into something entirely different within a century or two. Histories are just the opinions of the societies that create them, it is claimed, and, in the same vein, any sorts of views that can be argued over are the same. However, these arguments have been refuted by opponents. There is, it is claimed, a fundamental difference between fact and opinion. History is difficult, because no one can fully know what actually happened in the past. Thus, opinions, which are certainly shaped by societies, change. But this does not alter the actual facts of what happened. Whether your beliefs correspond to the facts or not, whether you persuade a generation of people to believe what you say or not, doesn't matter. There were a series of events which happened in the past. To deny those events is wrong, regardless of whether anyone acknowledges it or not. Furthermore, the first example with P and H is perhaps even easier to refute. Both are clearly espousing opinions not facts. The greatness of a composer is entirely based on opinion, and thus changes from person to person. However, with actual facts it is impossible to be neither wrong nor right. Many people used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, we believe the
1 This essay was entered for the Erasmus essay prize 2014.
72
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker