Résumés
Abstract
I am most grateful to the editors of Informal Logic for their willingness to publish my absurdly long paper (Siegel 2023a) in its entirety, and for organizing the four commentaries published along with it. I am grateful as well to Bart Garssen, Andrew Aberdein, Paula Olmos and Christoph Lumer for their insightful and challenging discussions. In what follows I respond to their criticisms and suggestions in the order in which they appear in the journal.
Keywords:
- critical rationalism,
- epistemic theory,
- pragma-dialectical theory,
- rhetorical theory,
- virtue argumentation theory
Résumé
Je suis très reconnaissant aux éditeurs d’Informal Logic pour leur volonté de publier mon article absurdement long (Siegel 2023a) dans son intégralité et pour avoir organisé les quatre commentaires publiés avec lui. Je suis également reconnaissant à Bart Garssen, Andrew Aberdein, Paula Olmos et Christoph Lumer pour leurs discussions perspicaces et stimulantes. Dans ce qui suit, je réponds à leurs critiques et suggestions dans l’ordre dans lequel elles apparaissent dans la revue.
Veuillez télécharger l’article en PDF pour le lire.
Télécharger
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Aberdein, A. 2020. Eudaimonistic argumentation. In From argument schemes to argumentative relations in the wild: A variety of contribu-tions to argumentation theory, eds. Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 97-106. Cham: Springer.
- Aberdein, A. 2023. Virtues suffice for argument evaluation. Informal Logic 43(4): 543-559.
- Biro, J., and H. Siegel. 2006. Pragma-dialectic versus epistemic theories of arguing and arguments: Rivals or partners? In Considering pragma-dialectics: A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday, eds. P. Houtlosser and A. van Rees, 1-10. Mahuah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Dutilh Novaes, C. 2021. The dialogical roots of deduction: Historical, cognitive, and philosophical perspectives on reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Eemeren, F. H. van. 2018. Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Eemeren, F. H. van, B. Garssen, T. van Haaften, E. C. W. Krabbe, A. F. Snoeck Henkemans and J. H. M. Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Falguera, J. L., C. Martínez-Vidal, and G. Rosen. 2022. Abstract objects. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/abstract-objects/. Retrieved 16 February 2024.
- Garssen, B. 2023. A reaction to critique from the epistemological sidelines. Informal Logic 43(4): 527-542.
- Garssen, B. and J. A. van Laar. 2010. A pragma-dialectical response to objectivist epistemic challenges. Informal Logic 30(2): 122-141.
- Godden, D. 2016. On the priority of agent-based argumentative norms. Topoi 35(2): 345-357.
- Hursthouse, R. 2006. Are virtues the proper starting point for morality? In Contemporary debates in moral theory, ed. J. Dreier, 99-112. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Kawall, J. 2009. In defense of the primacy of the virtues. Journal of Eth-ics and Social Philosophy 3(2): 1-21.
- Lumer, C. 2005. The epistemological theory of argument – how and why. Informal Logic 25.3: 213-243.
- Lumer, C. 2023. Justifying the epistemological theory of argumentation: On Harvey Siegel’s approach. Informal Logic 43(4): 574-600.
- Olmos, P. 2023. That obscure object of (philosophical) desire. Informal Logic 43(4): 560-573.
- Popper, K. R. 1970. Normal science and its dangers. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, eds. I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, pp. 51-58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Putnam, H. 1982. Why reason can’t be naturalized. Synthese 52.1: 3-23.
- Quine, W.V.O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Scanlon, T.M. 1998. What we owe to each other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Siegel, H. 1992. Justification by balance. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52(1): 27-46.
- Siegel, H. 1995a. Naturalized epistemology and ‘first philosophy’. Metaphilosophy 26.1-2: 46-62.
- Siegel, H. 1995b. What price inclusion? Teachers College Record 97.1: 6-31.
- Siegel, H. 1996. Instrumental rationality and naturalized philosophy of science. Philosophy of Science 63.S3: S116-S124.
- Siegel, H. 1999a. Argument quality and cultural difference. Argumentation 13.2: 183-201.
- Siegel, H. 1999b. Multiculturalism and the Possibility of Transcultural Educational and Philosophical Ideals. Philosophy 74: 387-409.
- Siegel, H. 2004. Relativism. In Handbook of Epistemology, eds. I. Niiniluoto, M. Sintonen, and J. Woleński, 747-780. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Siegel, H. 2019. Epistemic Rationality: Not (Just) Instrumental. Metaphilosophy 50.5: 608-630.
- Siegel, H. 2023a. Arguing with arguments: Argument quality, argumentative norms, and the strengths of the epistemic theory. Informal Logic 43(4): 465-526.
- Siegel, H. 2023b. Rational thinking and intellectually virtuous thinking: Identical, extensionally equivalent, or substantively different? Informal Log-ic 43(2): 204-223.
- Siegel, H. and J. Biro. 2008. Rationality, reasonableness, and critical rationalism: Problems with the pragma-dialectical view. Argumentation 22(2): 191-203.
- Siegel, H. and J. Biro. 2010. The pragmadialectician’s dilemma: Reply to Garssen and van Laar. Informal Logic 30(4): 457-480.
- Tindale, C. 2021. The anthropology of argument: Cultural foundations of rhetoric and reason. NY: Routledge.