72 found
Order:
Disambiguations:
William Rehg [61]William R. Rehg [11]William Richard Rehg [1]
  1.  13
    James Bohman & William Rehg (eds.) (1997). Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. The MIT Press.
    The contributions in this anthology address tensions that arise between reason and politics in a democracy inspired by the ideal of achieving reasoned agreement among free and equal citizens.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   37 citations  
  2.  84
    Jürgen Habermas & William Rehg (2001). Constitutional Democracy: A Paradoxical Union of Contradictory Principles? Political Theory 29 (6):766-781.
  3.  3
    William Rehg (2002). Insight and Solidarity: The Discourse Ethics of Jurgen Habermas. Human Studies 25 (3):397-405.
    Discourse ethics represents an exciting new development in neo-Kantian moral theory. William Rehg offers an insightful introduction to its complex theorization by its major proponent, Jürgen Habermas, and demonstrates how discourse ethics allows one to overcome the principal criticisms that have been leveled against neo-Kantianism. Addressing both "commun-itarian" critics who argue that universalist conceptions of justice sever moral deliberation from community traditions, and feminist advocates of the "ethics of care" who stress the moral significance of caring for other individuals, Rehg (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  4.  19
    William Rehg & Kent W. Staley (2008). The CDF Collaboration and Argumentation Theory: The Role of Process in Objective Knowledge. Perspectives on Science 16 (1):1-25.
    : For philosophers of science interested in elucidating the social character of science, an important question concerns the manner in which and degree to which the objectivity of scientific knowledge is socially constituted. We address this broad question by focusing specifically on philosophical theories of evidence. To get at the social character of evidence, we take an interdisciplinary approach informed by categories from argumentation studies. We then test these categories by exploring their applicability to a case study from high-energy physics. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  5.  18
    William Rehg (2007). Solidarity and the Common Good: An Analytic Framework. Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (1):7–21.
  6.  65
    William Rehg (2013). The Social Authority of Paradigms as Group Commitments: Rehabilitating Kuhn with Recent Social Philosophy. Topoi 32 (1):21-31.
    By linking the conceptual and social dynamics of change in science, Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions proved tremendously fruitful for research in science studies. But Kuhn’s idea of incommensurability provoked strong criticism from philosophers of science. In this essay I show how Raimo Tuomela’s Philosophy of Sociality illuminates and strengthens Kuhn’s model of scientific change. After recalling the central features and problems of Kuhn’s model, I introduce Tuomela’s approach. I then show (a) how Tuomela’s conception of group ethos aligns with (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Jürgen Habermas & William Rehg (1994). Postscript to Faktizität Und Geltung. Philosophy and Social Criticism 20 (4):135-150.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. William Rehg (1994). Insight and Solidarity: The Discourse Ethics of Jürgen Habermas. University of California Press.
    Discourse ethics represents an exciting new development in neo-Kantian moral theory. William Rehg offers an insightful introduction to its complex theorization by its major proponent, Jürgen Habermas, and demonstrates how discourse ethics allows one to overcome the principal criticisms that have been leveled against neo-Kantianism. Addressing both "commun-itarian" critics who argue that universalist conceptions of justice sever moral deliberation from community traditions, and feminist advocates of the "ethics of care" who stress the moral significance of caring for other individuals, Rehg (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  9.  23
    William Rehg (1991). Discourse and the Moral Point of View: Deriving a Dialogical Principle of Universalization. Inquiry 34 (1):27 – 48.
    Central to the discourse ethics advanced by Jürgen Habermas is a principle of universalization (U) amounting to a dialogical equivalent of Kant's Categorical Imperative. Habermas has proposed that ?U? follows by material implication from two premises: (1) what it means to discuss whether a moral norm ought to be . adopted and (2) what those involved in argumentation must suppose of themselves if they are to consider a consensus they reach as rationally motivated. To date, no satisfactory derivation of ?U? (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  10.  43
    William Rehg & James Bohman (1996). Discourse and Democracy: The Formal and Informal Bases of Legitimacy in Habermas' Faktizität Und Geltung. Journal of Political Philosophy 4 (1):79–99.
  11.  11
    William Rehg (2007). Perceptual Intentionality and Brandom's Pragmatics: Comments on Michael Barber. Modern Schoolman 84 (2-3):267-277.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  12.  6
    William Rehg (2009). Cogency in Motion: Critical Contextualism and Relevance. [REVIEW] Argumentation 23 (1):39-59.
    If arguments are to generate public knowledge, as in the sciences, then they must travel, finding acceptance across a range of local contexts. But not all good arguments travel, whereas some bad arguments do. Under what conditions may we regard the capacity of an argument to travel as a sign of its cogency or public merits? This question is especially interesting for a contextualist approach that wants to remain critically robust: if standards of cogency are bound to local contexts of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  13.  46
    William Rehg (2003). Critical Argumentation Theory and Democracy: Lessons of Past Debates Over Technoscience. Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 59 (1):113 - 138.
    Contemporary critical theorists working in the Frankfurt School tradition have focused considerable attention on theories of deliberative democracy, which in general attempt to show how public argumentation can be both democratic and reasonable. In this context, political questions that involve or depend on science present an acute challenge, inasmuch as deliberation must meet especially demanding epistemic requirements. In this article, the author examines two past responses to the challenge, each of which failed to reconcile reasonableness and democracy: that of the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  14
    William Rehg (1997). Legitimacy and Deliberation in Epistemic Conceptions of Democracy. Modern Schoolman 74 (4):355-374.
  15.  56
    William Rehg, Crossing Boundaries: Contexts of Practice as Common Goods.
    In the literature on scientific practices, one finds sustained analyses of the contextualist elements of inquiry. However, the ways in which local and disciplinary contexts of practice function as common goods remain largely unexplored. In this paper I argue that a contextualist analysis of scientific practices as common goods can shed light on the challenges of scientific communication and interdisciplinary collaboration, albeit without invoking Kuhn's problematic notion of incommensurability.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  25
    William Rehg & Darin Davis (2003). Conceptual Gerrymandering? The Alignment of Hursthouse's Naturalistic Virtue Ethics with Neo-Kantian Non-Naturalism. Southern Journal of Philosophy 41 (4):583-600.
  17.  20
    William Rehg, Peter McBurney & Simon Parsons (2004). Computer Decision-Support Systems for Public Argumentation: Assessing Deliberative Legitimacy. [REVIEW] AI and Society 19 (3):203-228.
    Recent proposals for computer-assisted argumentation have drawn on dialectical models of argumentation. When used to assist public policy planning, such systems also raise questions of political legitimacy. Drawing on deliberative democratic theory, we elaborate normative criteria for deliberative legitimacy and illustrate their use for assessing two argumentation systems. Full assessment of such systems requires experiments in which system designers draw on expertise from the social sciences and enter into the policy deliberation itself at the level of participants.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  18.  18
    William Rehg (2013). Rhetoric, Cogency, and the Radically Social Character of Persuasion: Habermas's Argumentation Theory Revisited. Philosophy and Rhetoric 46 (4):465-492.
    What can rhetoric tell us about good arguments? The answer depends on what we mean by “good argument” and on how we conceive rhetoric. In this article I examine and further develop Jürgen Habermas’s argumentation theory as an answer to the question—or as I explain, an expanded version of that question. Habermas places his theory in the family of normative approaches that recognize (at least) three evaluative perspectives on all argument making: logic, dialectic, and rhetoric, which proponents loosely align with (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  37
    William Rehg (2011). Evaluating Complex Collaborative Expertise: The Case of Climate Change. [REVIEW] Argumentation 25 (3):385-400.
    Science advisory committees exercise complex collaborative expertise. Not only do committee members collaborate, they do so across disciplines, producing expert reports that make synthetic multidisciplinary arguments. When reports are controversial, critics target both report content and committee process. Such controversies call for the assessment of expert arguments, but the multidisciplinary character of the debate outstrips the usual methods developed by informal logicians for assessing appeals to expert authority. This article proposes a multi-dimensional contextualist framework for critical assessment and tests it (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  15
    William Rehg (1994). Communicative Ethics in Theory and Practice. By Niels Thomassen. Modern Schoolman 71 (2):151-154.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  15
    William R. Rehg (1985). Marxism and Philosophy. By Alex Callinicos. Modern Schoolman 62 (3):201-203.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  4
    William Rehg (2005). Assessing the Cogency of Arguments: Lbree Kinds of Merits. Informal Logic 25 (2):95-115.
    This article proposes a way of connecting two levels at which scholars have studied discursive practices from a normative perspective: on the one hand, local transactions-face-to-face arguments or dialogues-and broadly dispersed public debates on the other. To help focus my analysis, I select two representatives of work at these two levels: the pragmadialectical model of critical discussion and Habermas's discourse theory of politicallegal deliberation. The two models confront complementary challenges that arise from gaps between their prescriptions and contexts of actual (...)
    Direct download (15 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  23.  8
    William R. Rehg (1988). Review: Howard, From Marx to Kant. Modern Schoolman 65 (4):282-284.
  24.  21
    William Rehg (1999). Intractable Conflicts and Moral Objectivity: A Dialogical, Problem-Based Approach. Inquiry 42 (2):229 – 257.
    According to the standard version of discourse ethics (e.g. as formulated by Apel, Habermas, and others), the objectivity of moral norms resides in their intersubjective acceptability under idealized conditions of discourse. These accounts have been criticized for not taking sufficient account of contextual particularities and the realities of actual discourse. This essay addresses such objections by proposing a more realistic, contextualist 'principle of real moral discourse' (RMD). RMD is derived from a more comprehensive concept of objectivity that links intersubjective objectivity (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  25.  15
    William Rehg (2013). Lonergan and Habermas: Contributions to Understanding the Moral Domain. Universitas Philosophica 30 (60):23-49.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. William Rehg (2003). Discourse Ethics. In Edith Wyschogrod & Gerald P. McKenny (eds.), The Ethical. Blackwell Pub. 5--83.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  13
    William Rehg (2003). Habermas, Argumentation Theory, and Science Studies: Toward Interdisciplinary Cooperation. Informal Logic 23 (2):161-182.
    This article examines two approaches to the analysis and critical assessment of scientific argumentation. The first approach employs the discourse theory that Jurgen Habermas has developed on the basis of his theory of communicative action and applied to the areas of politics and law. Using his analysis of law and democracy in his Between Facts and Norms as a kind of template, I sketch the main steps in a Habermasian discourse theory of science. Difficulties in his approach motivate my proposal (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  11
    William R. Rehg (1985). Marx's Critique of Capitalist Technology. Modern Schoolman 62 (2):111-130.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  16
    William Rehg (2000). Goldman?S Veritistic Rhetoric and the Tasks of Argumentation Theory. Social Epistemology 14 (4):293 – 303.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  30.  7
    William R. Rehg (1984). The God of Faith and Reason: Foundations of Christian Theology. By Robert Sokolowski. Modern Schoolman 61 (4):273-274.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31.  7
    William Rehg (2002). Logi Gunnarsson. Making Moral Sense: Beyond Habermas and Gauthier. Modern Schoolman 79 (4):315-318.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32.  5
    William Rehg (2002). Communicative Action and Rational Choice Joseph Heath Studies in Contemporary German Thought Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2001, Xii + 363 Pp., $39.95. [REVIEW] Dialogue 41 (3):622.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  33.  7
    William Rehg (1997). Introduction. Modern Schoolman 74 (4):255-257.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  34.  9
    William R. Rehg (1990). Reason, Revelation, and the Foundations of Political Philosophy. By James V. Schall. Modern Schoolman 67 (2):161-163.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  16
    Stephen Turner, William Rehg, Heather Douglas & Evan Selinger (2013). Book Symposium on Expertise: Philosophical Reflections by Evan Selinger Automatic Press/Vip, Vince Inc. Press 2011. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Technology 26 (1):93-109.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  9
    William Rehg (2001). Toward a Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Modern Schoolman 79 (1):79-90.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. William Rehg (2000). Between Facts and Norms. Mind 109 (435):608-614.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  38.  7
    William Rehg (2013). Lonergan Y Habermas: Contribuciones a la comprensión Del ámbito moral. Universitas Philosophica 30 (60):23-49.
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39.  4
    William R. Rehg (1987). Reflection and Action. By Nathan Rotenstreich. Modern Schoolman 65 (1):74-76.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40.  12
    William Rehg (1989). Marx's Theory of Scientific Knowledge. By Patrick Murray. Modern Schoolman 66 (4):316-318.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  6
    William R. Rehg (1986). Philosophy and Technology. Edited by Paul T. Durbin and Friedrich Rapp. Modern Schoolman 64 (1):67-68.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42.  21
    William Rehg (2003). Grasping the Force of the Better Argument: McMahon Versus Discourse Ethics. Inquiry 46 (1):113 – 133.
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  6
    William R. Rehg (1986). Marx's Social Critique of Culture. By Louis Dupre. Modern Schoolman 63 (3):220-222.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  12
    William Rehg (2005). Ideals of Argumentative Process and the Ethnomethodology of Scientific Work. Symposium: The Canadian Journal of Continental Philosophy 9 (2):313-337.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  11
    William Rehg (2002). The Critical Potential of Discourse Ethics: Reply to Meehan and Chambers. [REVIEW] Human Studies 25 (3):407-412.
    No categories
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  4
    William Rehg (1996). Critique, Action, and Liberation. International Philosophical Quarterly 36 (3):359-360.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  9
    William Rehg (2010). Review of Andrew Feenberg, Between Reason and Experience: Essays in Technology and Modernity. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2010 (8).
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  11
    William Rehg (2000). Critical Science Studies as Argumentation Theory: Who's Afraid of Ssk? Philosophy of the Social Sciences 30 (1):33-48.
    This article asks whether an interdisciplinary "critical science studies" (CSS) is possible between a critical theory in the Frankfurt School tradition, with its commitment to universal standards of reason, and relativistic sociologies of scientific knowledge (e.g., David Bloor's strong programme). It is argued that CSS is possible if its practitioners adopt the epistemological equivalent of Rawls's method of avoidance. A discriminating, public policy–relevant critique of science can then proceed on the basis of an argumentation theory that employs an immanent standard (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  12
    William Rehg (2003). Moral Discourse as Reflection: Comments on James Swindal's Reflection Revisited. Philosophy and Social Criticism 29 (2):127-136.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50.  7
    William R. Rehg (1989). Lonergan's Performative Transcendental Argument Against Scepticism. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 63:257-268.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 72