深刻的分歧和耐心是辩论的美德

IF 0.9 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Informal Logic Pub Date : 2021-03-02 DOI:10.22329/IL.V41I1.6689

Kathryn Phillips

{"title":"深刻的分歧和耐心是辩论的美德","authors":"Kathryn Phillips","doi":"10.22329/IL.V41I1.6689","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A popular approach to analyzing the concept of evidence is to identify a unique set of normative criteria delineating the concept. However, disagreements about evidence seem deep, and using this approach raises concerns about the imposition of dominant norms, which might exclude important sources of knowledge. Patience is an argumentative virtue necessary to continue to engage in disagreements rather than lose hope in the face of seemingly intractable disputes such as the nature of evidence.","PeriodicalId":45902,"journal":{"name":"Informal Logic","volume":"41 1","pages":"107-130"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deep Disagreement and Patience as an Argumentative Virtue\",\"authors\":\"Kathryn Phillips\",\"doi\":\"10.22329/IL.V41I1.6689\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A popular approach to analyzing the concept of evidence is to identify a unique set of normative criteria delineating the concept. However, disagreements about evidence seem deep, and using this approach raises concerns about the imposition of dominant norms, which might exclude important sources of knowledge. Patience is an argumentative virtue necessary to continue to engage in disagreements rather than lose hope in the face of seemingly intractable disputes such as the nature of evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Informal Logic\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"107-130\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Informal Logic\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22329/IL.V41I1.6689\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Informal Logic","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22329/IL.V41I1.6689","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

摘要

分析证据概念的一种流行方法是确定一套独特的规范标准来描述这一概念。然而，关于证据的分歧似乎很深，使用这种方法引起了对强加主导规范的担忧，这可能会排除重要的知识来源。耐心是一种善辩的美德，在面对诸如证据的性质等看似棘手的争议时，耐心是继续参与争论的必要条件，而不是失去希望。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Deep Disagreement and Patience as an Argumentative Virtue

A popular approach to analyzing the concept of evidence is to identify a unique set of normative criteria delineating the concept. However, disagreements about evidence seem deep, and using this approach raises concerns about the imposition of dominant norms, which might exclude important sources of knowledge. Patience is an argumentative virtue necessary to continue to engage in disagreements rather than lose hope in the face of seemingly intractable disputes such as the nature of evidence.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

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.