A Modal Criterion for Epistemic Argumentation

IF 0.9 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Informal Logic Pub Date : 2022-06-10 DOI:10.22329/il.v42i2.7020

Job A. M. de Grefte

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, I spell out and argue for a new epistemic theory of argumentation. Contrary to extant views, this theory is compatible with a pluralistic framework on argumentation, where the norms governing argumentation depend on the aim with which we engage in the practice. A domain of specifically epistemic argumentation is singled out, and I argue based on recent findings in modal epistemology that this domain is governed by the modal norm of safety; where a belief is safe just in case it is produced by a method that would not easily produce a false belief. While this criterion is well-known and uncontroversial in epistemology, it has hitherto not been applied to epistemic theories of argumentation. I show that the norm allows for a novel and superior perspective of the relevance of the persistent interlocutor in argumentation theory, and on the relation between dialectical and epistemic norms more generally.

查看原文本刊更多论文

认识论论证的模态标准

在本文中，我阐述并论证了一种新的论证认识论。与现存观点相反，这一理论与论证的多元框架相兼容，在这种框架中，论证的规范取决于我们从事实践的目的。特别指出了一个特定认识论论证的领域，我根据模态认识论的最新发现认为，这个领域受安全的模态规范的支配；其中一个信念是安全的，以防它是由一种不容易产生错误信念的方法产生的。虽然这一标准在认识论中是众所周知的，也没有争议，但迄今为止，它还没有应用于论证的认识论理论。我表明，规范允许从一个新颖而优越的视角来看待论证理论中持久对话者的相关性，以及辩证规范和认识规范之间的关系。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Informal Logic PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Informal Logic publishes articles that advance the dialectic in reasoning and argumentation theory and practice. Primary criteria for the acceptance of articles with a theoretical focus or interest are: (1) the article advances the dialectic or constitutes an interesting comment on it: it presents a cogent argument, objection, interpretation or position that is an advance in relation to the background of issues and controversies on the topic; or it casts the issue addressed in a new and worthwhile light; and (2) the article makes explicit reference to the pertinent literature on its topic, and it discharges the burden of proof imposed by that scholarship. Primary criteria for acceptance of articles devoted to the teaching of informal logic, critical thinking or argumentation include: originality; utility; timeliness; and evidence of the effectiveness of the methods, materials, technologies, etc., proposed. The standard criteria for scholarly publication—topical fit with the subjects covered in the journal; adequacy of coverage to the issue addressed; clarity, organization and literateness of the prose; conceptual clarity and cogency of argumentation—apply ceteris paribus to the selection of all articles, notes and reviews.