Resolution of Deep Disagreement: Not Simply Consensus

IF 0.9 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Informal Logic Pub Date : 2020-08-29 DOI:10.22329/il.v40i30.6172

L. Henderson

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Robert Fogelin has argued that in deep disagreements, resolution cannot be achieved by rational argumentation. In response, Richard Feldman has claimed that deep disagreements can be resolved in a similar way to more everyday disagreements. I argue that Feldman’s claim is based on a relatively superficial notion of “resolution” of a disagreement whereas the notion at stake in Fogelin’s argument is more substantive. Furthermore, I argue that Feldman’s reply is based on a particular reading of Fogelin’s argument. There is an alternative reading, which takes the central concern to be the role of common ground in argumentation. Engaging with this version of Fogelin’s argument is also a worthwhile endeavour.

查看原文本刊更多论文

深刻分歧的解决:不是简单的共识

罗伯特·福格林（Robert Fogelin）认为，在深刻的分歧中，通过理性的论证无法解决问题。作为回应，Richard Feldman声称，深层次的分歧可以通过类似于日常分歧的方式来解决。我认为，费尔德曼的主张是基于一个相对肤浅的“解决”分歧的概念，而福格林论点中的利害关系概念更具实质性。此外，我认为费尔德曼的回答是基于对福格林论点的特殊解读。还有一种可供选择的阅读方式，它将共同点在论证中的作用作为中心关注点。参与福格林论点的这一版本也是一项值得的努力。

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.