A dispute with no practical consequence is an empty dispute

James opens with an anecdote about a squirrel on a tree trunk and an observer circling it, used to illustrate his central diagnostic tool: many seemingly deep philosophical disagreements dissolve once you ask what different, concrete experience would follow if one side were correct rather than the other. If the answer is nothing whatsoever would change in practice, James argues the dispute is merely verbal, a disagreement about which words to apply rather than a disagreement about the world. This isn't an attack on philosophy itself but a proposed filter for separating genuinely substantive questions from disguised semantic quibbles that have consumed philosophers for centuries without resolution. James presents this as liberating rather than dismissive: it clears away false problems so genuine ones can get proper attention. Takeaway: before arguing further, ask what would actually be different if you won the argument.