La metáfora de la confrontación y los argumentadores razonables
ISSN: 0011-1503
Any de publicació: 2021
Volum: 53
Número: 158
Pàgines: 23-46
Tipus: Article
Altres publicacions en: Crítica: revista hispanoamericana de filosofía
Resum
Argumentative discussions are commonly described in adversarial terms,but it is not obvious that argumentation is necessarily adversarial. Here I argue thatadversariality is not an essential element in argumentation and in fact it must beavoided because it discourages reasonable behaviour. Reasonableness, characterisedhere as willingness to modify one’s own beliefs in the light of good arguments,is jeopardised by adversarial goals. That gives us a reason to reject adversarialityin argumentation, since reasonableness contributes to some of the greatest goodsthat argumentation can provide
Referències bibliogràfiques
- Aikin, S., 2011, “A Defense of War and Sport Metaphors in Argument”, Philosophy and Rhetoric, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 250–272.
- Brockriede, W., 1972, “Arguers as Lovers”, Philosophy and Rhetoric, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–11.
- Casey, J., 2020, “Adversariality and Argumentation”, Informal Logic, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 77–108.
- Cohen, D.H., 2019, “Argumentative Virtues as Conduits for Reason’s Causal Efficacy: Why the Practice of Giving Reasons Requires that We Practice Hearing Reasons”, Topoi, vol. 38, pp. 711–718.
- Cohen, D.H., 1995, “Argument Is War. . . And War Is Hell: Philosophy, Education, and Metaphors for Argumentation”, Informal Logic, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 177–188.
- Druckman, J.N., 2001, “The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence”, Political Behavior, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 225–256.
- Eemeren, F.H. van, 2018, Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Springer, Dordrecht.
- Eemeren, F.H. van, 2015, Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse, Springer, Dordrecht.
- Eemeren, F.H. van y R. Grootendorst, 1988, “Rationale for A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective”, Argumentation, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 271–291.
- Govier, T., 1999, The Philosophy of Argument, Vale Press, Newport News, VA.
- Harding, S. y M.B. Hintikka (eds.), 1983, Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
- Kahneman, D., 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Nueva York.
- Kunda, Z., 1999, Social Cognition: Making Sense of People, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
- Lakoff, G. y M. Johnson, 1980, Metaphors We Live By, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
- Mercier, H., 2016, “The Argumentative Theory: Predictions And Empirical Evidence”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 689–700.
- Mercier, H. y D. Sperber, 2017, The Enigma of Reason, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
- Moulton, J., 1983, “A Paradigm of Philosophy: The Adversary Method”, en Harding y Hintikka 1983, pp. 149–164.
- Niemeyer, S., 2011, “The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-Public”, Politics & Society, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 103–140.
- Nisbett, R.E. y T.D. Wilson, 1977, “Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes”, Psychological Review, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 231–259.
- O’Keefe, D.J., 1977, “Two Concepts of Argument”, The Journal of the American Forensic Association, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 121–128.
- Robins, S. y R.E. Mayer, 2000, “The Metaphor Framing Effect: Metaphorical Reasoning about Text-Based Dilemmas”, Discourse Processes, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 57–86.
- Rooney, P., 2010, “Philosophy, Adversarial Argumentation, and Embattled Reason”, Informal Logic, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 203–234.
- Trouche, E., E. Sander y H. Mercier, 2014, “Arguments, More Than Confidence, Explain The Good Performance of Reasoning Groups”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 143, no. 5, pp. 1958–1971.