From Dyadic Conflict to Trilateral Gravity: A Framework for Epistemic Repair in Deep Disagreement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68050/JAMS.2026.551Keywords:
deep disagreement; epistemic injustice; epistemic repair; conflict transformation; attractor dynamics; water governanceAbstract
Deep disagreement and epistemic injustice can reinforce one another. Deep disagreement concerns conflict over fundamental beliefs, values, or standards of reasoning; epistemic injustice concerns wrongs inflicted on people in their capacity as knowers. When credibility is unequally distributed, disagreement becomes harder to deliberate, while incompatible epistemic frameworks can intensify the dismissal of testimony and the exclusion of interpretive resources. This paper develops the Great Attractor framework as a conceptual model of structural epistemic repair. The model proposes that, where disputants cannot establish a shared justificatory framework, cooperation may be organized around a third reference point: a shared material necessity, institutional commitment, or public value. The proposed mechanism is not adjudication. It is a change in the structure of interaction that can make reciprocal dependence, shared measurement, and new interpretive resources possible without requiring prior agreement on disputed foundations. A structured theoretical synthesis connects research on deep disagreement, epistemic injustice, deliberative design, and dynamical accounts of intractable conflict. Its central claim is modest: external coordination points may support epistemic repair, but they cannot substitute for justice, recognition, or institutional transformation.
References
1. Ali, H. A., Baronian, M., Burlace, L., Davies, P. A., Halasah, S., Hind, M., Hossain, A., Lipchin, C., Majali, A., Mark, M., & Naughton, T. (2019). Off-grid desalination for irrigation in the Jordan valley. *Desalination and Water Treatment, 168*, 143–154. [https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2019.24567](https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2019.24567)
2. Coleman, P. T., Vallacher, R. R., Nowak, A., & Bui-Wrzosinska, L. (2007). Intractable conflict as an attractor. *American Behavioral Scientist, 50*(11), 1454–1475. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764207302463](https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764207302463)
3. Dai, L. (2021). Implementation constraints on Israel–Palestine water cooperation: An analysis using the water governance assessment framework. *Water, 13*(5), 620. [https://doi.org/10.3390/w13050620](https://doi.org/10.3390/w13050620)
4. Dryzek, J., & Niemeyer, S. J. (2024). Expressive epistemic injustice: Definition, measurement, and deliberative cure. *Political Research Quarterly.* [https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241297272](https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241297272)
5. Dular, N. (2023). One too many: Hermeneutical excess as hermeneutical injustice. *Hypatia.* [https://doi.org/10.1017/hyp.2023.20](https://doi.org/10.1017/hyp.2023.20)
6. Fischhendler, I., Katz, D., & Feitelson, E. (2016). Identifying synergies and trade-offs in the sustainability–security nexus: The case of the Israeli–Palestinian wastewater treatment regime. *Hydrological Sciences Journal, 61*(7), 1358–1369. [https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.993644](https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.993644)
7. Fogelin, R. J. (1985). The logic of deep disagreement. *Informal Logic, 7*(1). [https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v7i1.2696](https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v7i1.2696)
8. Fricker, M. (2007). *Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing.* [https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001)
9. Fuentes, C., Goñi, J. “Iñaki,” & Miranda, C. (2021). Analytical categories to describe deficit attributions in deep disagreements between citizens and experts. *Public Understanding of Science, 31*(1), 70–87. [https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211020474](https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211020474)
10. Gonzales, L. D., Pasque, P. A., Farris, K., & Hansen, J. (2023). Epistemic injustice and legitimacy in the U.S. doctoral education: A systematic review of the literature. *Review of Educational Research.* [https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231187628](https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231187628)
11. Hornyak-Bell, E., Thomas, A., Chrestensen, A., Quaiattini, A., Lavoie, P., Caty, M.-È., Drolet, M.-J., Rochette, A., & Kinsella, E. (2026). Epistemic injustice in healthcare professional practice: A scoping review. *Social Science & Medicine (1967).* [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2026.119040](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2026.119040)
12. Johnson, D. (2025). Belief beyond reason: A radical relativist hinge epistemology. *Asian Journal of Philosophy.* [https://doi.org/10.1007/s44204-025-00244-4](https://doi.org/10.1007/s44204-025-00244-4)
13. Kious, B. (2021). Look for injustice and you’ll probably find it: A commentary on Harcourt’s “epistemic injustice, children and mental illness.” *Journal of Medical Ethics.* [https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107894](https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107894)
14. McGlynn, A. (2023). Hidden depths: Testimonial injustice, deep disagreement, and democratic deliberation. *International Journal of Philosophical Studies.* [https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2023.2263710](https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2023.2263710)
15. Medina, J. (2013). *The epistemology of resistance: Gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and resistant imaginations.* Oxford University Press.
16. Okuhara, T., Okada, H., Yokota, R., & Kagawa, Y. (2025). Listening to the silence of pain narratives: A qualitative study of epistemic injustice in patient-clinician communication on medically unexplained chronic pain in Japan. *Patient Education and Counseling.* [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2025.109402](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2025.109402)
17. Pohlhaus, G. (2012). Relational knowing and epistemic injustice: Toward a theory of willful hermeneutical ignorance. *Hypatia, 27*(4), 715–735. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01222.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01222.x)
18. Ranalli, C., & Lagewaard, T. (2022). Deep disagreement (Part 1): Theories of deep disagreement. *Philosophy Compass.* [https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12886](https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12886)
19. Schmidt, E. (2024). Epistemic injustice in deliberative mini publics. *Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 20*(1). [https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.1493](https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.1493)
20. Walschot, M., & Katz, D. (2022). Desalination and transboundary water conflict and cooperation: A mixed-method empirical approach. *Water.* [https://doi.org/10.3390/w14121925](https://doi.org/10.3390/w14121925)
21. Williams, H., & Jobe, A. (2024). Testimonial injustice: Exploring “credibility” as a barrier to justice for people with learning disabilities/autism who report sexual violence. *Disability & Society.* [https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2024.2323455](https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2024.2323455)
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles published in the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Studies (JAMS) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated. Authors retain copyright of their work and grant JAMS the right of first publication.
