Deeper into Argumentative Bullshit

IF 0.9 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Informal Logic Pub Date : 2022-06-10 DOI:10.22329/il.v42i2.7005

N. Mukerji, Adriano Mannino

引用次数: 1

Abstract

In a recent paper, José Ángel Gascón extends the Frankfurtian notion of bullshit to the sphere of argumentation. On Frankfurt’s view, the hallmark of bullshit is a lack of concern for the truth of an utterance on the part of the bullshitter. Similarly, Gascón argues, the hallmark of argumentative bullshit should be viewed as a lack of concern for whether the reasons that are adduced for a claim genuinely support that claim. Gascón deserves credit for drawing attention to the idea of argumentative bullshit. Nevertheless, we argue, his treatment leaves room for further refinement as he fails to clarify important points and misidentifies several features of argumentative bullshit. In particular, Gascón’s account fails to accommodate non-Frankfurtian forms of argumentative bullshit. This paper aims to amend and extend his proposal and proposes a general account that can encompass both Frankfurtian and non-Frankfurtian forms of argumentative bullshit.

查看原文本刊更多论文

深入辩论废话

在最近的一篇论文中，JoséÁngel Gascón将法兰克福式的扯淡概念扩展到了论证领域。在法兰克福看来，扯淡的标志是不关心扯淡者说话的真实性。同样，加斯康认为，争论性废话的标志应该被视为不关心为一项主张所援引的理由是否真的支持这一主张。加斯康引起了人们对争论性废话的关注，这值得称赞。然而，我们认为，他的处理方式留下了进一步完善的空间，因为他没有澄清要点，并错误地识别了议论文的几个特点。特别是，加斯康的叙述未能容纳非法兰克福式的争论废话。本文旨在修改和扩展他的建议，并提出一个可以涵盖法兰克福式和非法兰克福式辩论废话的一般描述。

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.