The nature and extent of differences of opinion are both matters of eventuality, so since skepticism about differences of opinion is due to these factors, the sceptic consequences of differences are also due. At another time, the shape of the Earth was quite controversial. While there is no universal consensus that the Earth is roughly spherical, the conditions for recognition of controversies in this matter are no longer met. Similarly, at some point, the issues of current great controversies will not be able to meet the conditions for recognition of controversies. The skeptical threat of disagreement can therefore come and go. In other words, the endurance record of various philosophical disagreements strongly indicates that they will not go anywhere in the near future. Graham also saw his hierarchy as a way to mix dishonest arguments or „fake news“ in modern language. Powerful words are just a „quality of definition of a demagogue,“ he stressed. By understanding the different forms of their disagreement, „we give critical readers a pin to burst such balloons,“ Graham wrote. It is a superior form to address the very flesh of the argument. In this form of disagreement, you offer an opposing case, but very little evidence. You just say what you believe to be true, unlike the position of the person you`re arguing with.
Graham gives this example: Equal Weight View isn`t the only game in town when it comes to the epistemic importance of disagreements. Below, we`ll look at competitors` views on differences of opinion and highlight where and why they deviate from the Equal Weight View. . . .