<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;
panose-1:2 11 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-AU" link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi everyone,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This week's speaker in the University of Sydney Philosophy Seminar Series is Alex Kocurek, (Cornell)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The title of the talk is "Verbal Disputes and Metadisputes". Here is an abstract for the talk:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Impasses in philosophical discourse often prompt us to question the very nature of the dispute at hand. Is there a fact of the matter as to which side is right? Or does the answer simply turn on, as Carnap would
put it, a choice of linguistic framework? Such questions have given rise to metadisputes, which, ironically, have become just as intractable as the first-order disputes they are about. This talk explores the possibility that these metadisputes themselves might
be verbal. I propose a general framework for analyzing verbal disputes that can shed light on this possibility and argue that identifying whether a dispute is verbal ultimately hinges on one’s metasemantic views and that, in some instances, might entail there
is no factual resolution to the question. I’ll consider how to theorize about such higher-order matters and explore some of the ramifications this view would have for philosophical methodology.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The seminar will take place at 3:30pm on Wednesday Apr 10 in the Philosophy Seminar Room (N494).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Enquiries about the seminar series can be directed to ryan.cox@sydney.edu.au</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ryan Cox</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Associate Lecturer in Philosophy</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Discipline of Philosophy</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">School of Humanities</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">University of Sydney</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ryan.cox@sydney.edu.au<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>