But not all disputes are verbal disputes. Some disputes are real disputes where there are real disagreements between the parties. Real or non-verbal arguments can be of two types. These disputes include either disagreements of attitude or disagreements. Attitude disagreements occur when two people or parties express different feelings or attitudes in the same situation. So who is right and who is wrong? In a way, both teachers are right because they seem to be working with two different definitions of “best students.” For Teacher A, the best student is the one with the highest average grade. For teacher B, the best student is the one with the highest number of A grades. Obviously, the student who meets the first definition does not necessarily have to be the same as the student who meets the second definition. This is an example of what we might call a purely verbal argument, where the apparent disagreement is not due to disagreements about the facts, but to the different understanding of the meaning of a key term or concept. Can you give your own examples of factual and verbal disputes? These are not verbal arguments, as both people agree on the meaning of the words they use to convey their respective feelings. This is a case of real disagreement in the sense that they have different feelings about the same situation. However, there are situations where the parties involved have to choose a certain interpretation.
For example, there can only be one award given to the best student, and so it is necessary to choose between the two definitions to decide whether Cindy or Betty should receive the award. So this is the second way to resolve a verbal dispute with two definitions – we choose to adopt a particular definition by looking very carefully at the function it is supposed to perform. If, in the example discussed, you have to choose between the definitions of teachers A and B, which definition will you choose and why? For example, some people like eggs and others don`t like eggs. Those who love eggs would say that eggs are delicious, but those who don`t would disagree, saying that eggs don`t taste good. Here they express their disagreement in their attitude towards eggs. If two people give different answers to the question of whether eggs taste good or not, then it is a fact that one of them likes its taste and the other does not like the taste. There are two main ways to resolve a purely verbal dispute once the different meanings of a key term are emphasized. First, the various parties could agree not to agree on the use of the term. Thus, Teachers A and B could agree that they have provided two different, more precise definitions of “the best student” and that both are legitimate, and they may agree that Cindy is the best student according to one interpretation and that Betty is the best student according to a different interpretation. A verbal dispute would disappear once the parties involved in distinguishing between the different meanings of the important terms had agreed on the meaning of those terms. We can save a lot of time, sharpen our reasoning skills, and communicate more effectively with each other by paying attention to disagreements about the meaning of words and trying to resolve them whenever we can. Disputes arising from the ambiguity or vagueness of words are oral disputes.
A verbal argument can be avoided by specifying the direction in which keywords are used. Once the parties to the dispute have clearly indicated in what sense they are using the terms, they will realize that there is disagreement on the meaning of their terms and that the parties to the dispute cannot oppose it. Verbal disputes are often opposed to factual disputes, where disagreements have to do with different opinions about facts and not meaning. If someone thinks Sydney is the capital of Australia and others disagree, then the disagreement is factual. There is an important type of dispute where the parties to the dispute disagree on what they believe to be true. These are factual disputes. People who are in a factual dispute agree on the meaning of the words they use to express their respective positions, but they disagree on the truth of a particular statement. Suppose one person claims that a spider has eight legs and another person disagrees, claiming that spiders have six legs.
In other words, an expression is vague if it is not clear whether or not it is applicable in a particular context. Examples of vague terms include “child,” “bald,” “old,” “happy,” “rich,” and “thin.” Another way that imprecision can occur is when an expression has several criteria that must be met for its correct application, and there is no specification of how many criteria must be met or to what extent. Consider, for example, the question, “If a tree falls into the forest and no one is there to hear it, is there a sound?” The contradictory answers to this question could be due to the ambiguity of the crucial word “sound” in the question. The word “sound” can mean sound waves or the sensation of sound. If the word “sound” is used to refer to sound waves, then there are sounds in the forest when the tree falls, whether someone is there to hear it or not. Such controversies, which are due to the vague or ambiguous use of words, are unnecessary controversies and should be avoided as much as possible. Further investigation into the matter will settle their dispute in support of the claim that spiders have eight legs because spiders actually have eight. However, there are factual disputes that are difficult to resolve because we are not able to verify the facts, but in such cases we can say what would resolve the issue. Alternatively, if the word is used to refer to the sensation of sound, then there is clearly no sound when no one is there to experience it. .
