<p>This paper analyses how deep disagreements should be conceptualised. It critically examines the most prominent definitions and theories available and assesses their capacity to capture the phenomenon. We argue that, although existing accounts provide valuable insights that further our understanding of deep disagreements, they are imprecise for various reasons. Subsequently, we argue that these imprecisions motivate a more exhaustive meta-epistemological reflection regarding how we should go about defining and theorizing about deep disagreements. Finally, we provide said reflection by developing a family-resemblance conception of deep disagreements and arguing for methodological pluralism when theorizing about this phenomenon. Such proposal is defended on the basis that ignoring the heterodoxy of deep disagreements comes at the expense of philosophical unclarity or imprecision.</p>