Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T21:28:18.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ARGUMENTATION AND THE SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF REASONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2015

Patrick Rysiew
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Jennifer Nagel suggests that Mercier and Sperber’s argumentative theory of reasoning can shed light on “why we commonly think of perceptually and testimonially supported judgments as justified despite feeling worried, on reflection, that only what is internally available can justify”. While I agree that there is indeed a natural path (or paths) from the argumentative theory to this asymmetry, and instability, in our epistemic judgments, I am not sure that it is quite the one that Nagel identifies. Having registered some reservations about Nagel’s account, I make an alternative suggestion as to how the argumentative theory might help to explain the naturalness of the relevant judgments.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 12 , Special Issue 2: 10th Anniversary of Episteme , June 2015 , pp. 309 - 317
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adler, J. 2013. ‘Epistemological Problems of Testimony.’ In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/testimony-episprob/>.Google Scholar
Audi, R. 2001. ‘An Internalist Theory of Normative Grounds.’ Philosophical Topics, 29: 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K. and Harnish, R. M. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bonjour, L. 1978. ‘Can Empirical Knowledge have a Foundation?’ American Philosophical Quarterly, 15: 1–13.Google Scholar
Fumerton, R. 1988. ‘The Internalism/Externalism Controversy.’ In Tomberlin, J. E. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives. Vol. 2, Epistemology, pp. 443–59. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. and Olsson, E. J. 2009. ‘Reliabilism and the Value of Knowledge.’ In Haddock, A., Millar, A., and Pritchard, D. (eds), Epistemic Value, pp. 20–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H. 2012. On Reflection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. 2000 a. Theory of Knowledge. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. 2000 b. ‘Discursive Knowledge.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 60: 637–53.Google Scholar
Lerner, J. S. and Tetlock, P. E. 1999. ‘Accounting for the Effects of Accountability.’ Psychological Bulletin, 125: 255–75.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. 2011. ‘Why do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34: 57–74.Google Scholar
Nagel, J. 2015. The social value of reasoning in epistemic justification. Episteme, doi: 10.1017/epi.2015.4.Google Scholar
Reid, T. 1785/1997. Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man, Brookes, D. R. (ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Rysiew, P. 2002. ‘Encouragement in Darwin?' Facta Philosophica, 4: 271–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rysiew, P. 2008. ‘Rationality Disputes – Psychology and Epistemology.’ Philosophy Compass, 3: 1153–76.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. 2001. ‘An Evolutionary Perspective on Testimony and Argumentation.’ Philosophical Topics, 29: 401–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Mercier, H. 2012. ‘Reasoning as a Social Competence.’ In Landemore, H. and Elster, J. (eds), Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms, pp. 368–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clement, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G. and Wilson, D. 2010. ‘Epistemic Vigilance.’ Mind and Language, 25: 359–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar