### You are viewing a page indexed by search engine. All comments on the topic are put together without order and may be confusing to read. To see organized discussion click here. ###
Agreeing to Disagree.
This also means that at least one of people disagreeing is not an honest truth seeker, or that not enough time was spent in exchanging individual knowledge in attempt to make it common knowledge.
Maybe people are agreeing but lying the other about it, or maybe they don't want to admit they were wrong as it would negatively affect their relative position in regards to the other, or maybe they argue mainly for sport. It is probably impossible for two persons to have common knowledge as not all knowledge can be expressed with words and language. Language describes and expresses aspects of existence. While language is a powerful and flexible system, it may have limits. One such limit is the description of the entire reality. There is also intuition - a result of biological/psychological/sociological instinct, as well as all our life's experiences - how can you put that into words? [1][2] Two people acting rationally and with common knowledge of each other's beliefs cannot agree to disagree.
Honest truth-seeking persons should not agree to disagree. The ubiquity of disagreement, however, suggests that very few people, academics included, are justified in thinking ourselves to be very metarational. We are instead self-deceived in thinking ourselves to be more meta-rational than others. [3][4]Agreeing to Disagree.
