ABSTRACT When disagreements cut deep, epistemic agents face a predicament. Although disagreements have been widely hailed for their epistemic benefits, deep disagreements are often plagued with argumentative hurdles preventing the attainment of such epistemic goods. This raises an important question: What should one do when faced with a deep disagreement? This article develops a case‐sensitive framework to help epistemic agents tailor their argumentative course of action to the rich complexity of deep disagreements in hopes of yielding positive epistemic outcomes.
Jordi Fairhurst (2026) studied this question.