Reasoning

This essay develops an interpretation of Kant’s conception of the faculty of reason as the capacity for what he calls "comprehension" (Begreifen). In doing so, it first discusses Kant's characterizations of reason in relation to what he describes as the two highest grades of cognition—insight and comprehension. Then it discusses how the resulting conception of reason relates to more familiar characterizations as the faculty for inference and the faculty of principles. In doing so, it focuses on how the idea of (...) reason as aiming at comprehension expresses the modesty about reason that is essential to Kant’s critical philosophy. It concludes by showing how this grounds an elegant account of the unity of theoretical and practical reason—one that does justice both to the "primacy" that Kant assigns to practical reason and the fact that this "primacy" is grounded in a more basic unity. (shrink)

Central to many discussions of motivated reasoning is the idea that it runs afoul of epistemic normativity. Reasoning differently about information supporting our prior beliefs versus information contradicting those beliefs, is frequently equated with motivated irrationality. By analyzing the normative status of belief polarization, selective scrutiny, biased assimilation and the myside bias, I show this inference is often not adequately supported. Contrary to what’s often assumed, these phenomena need not indicate motivated irrationality, even though they are instances of belief-consistent information (...) processing. Second, I engage with arguments purporting to show that belief-consistent information processing does not indicate motivated irrationality because of its mere differential treatment of confirming and non-confirming evidence, but rather because it reveals the undermining presence of an irrelevant influence, such as a desire or partisan identity-driven cognition. While linking belief-consistent reasoning to a deeper source of directional motivation to make good on the claim that it indicates motivated irrationality is indeed what’s needed, two prominent such arguments fail. The non-normativity of many reasoning processes often taken to indicate motivated irrationality is not in fact well established. (shrink)

De mens is irrationeel. Verliefd op zijn eigen gelijk. Doof voor feiten argumenten. Verblind door honderden denkfouten. Een makkelijke prooi voor nepnieuws. Gevangen in filterbubbels. Zo is het heersende idee. Maar klopt het wel? In dit boek verweeft filosoof Maarten van Doorn de jongste inzichten uit de psychologie, communicatiewetenschappen, filosofie en politicologie. Hij neemt ons mee op een reis langs verrassende onderzoeksresultaten en scherpzinnige filosofen en geeft nieuwe antwoorden op dringende vragen: Waarom geloven we wat we geloven? Hoe veranderen mensen (...) van mening? Zijn we echt in een post-truth tijdperk aanbeland? Hoe gevaarlijk is misinformatie? Zijn onze emoties of onze ratio de baas in ons hoofd en in onze maatschappij? Waarom we beter denken dan we denken biedt een hoopvol geluid in een gepolariseerde wereld. (shrink)

Грамматика разума представляет собой новую для нашего времени науку, хотя создана она была еще в первой трети XIX века великим немецким ученым В. Гегелем. В предлагаемой Вашему вниманию книге данная наука впервые излагается в краткой доступной форме.

Anläßlich ihres 75-jährigen Jubiläums hat die Philosophisch-Theologische Hochschule Sankt Georgen in Frankfurt am Main am 19. und 20. Oktober 2001 eine Tagung zu "Vernünftig. Ansätze gegenwärtiger Religionsphilosophie" veranstaltet, deren wissenschaftlicher Ertrag mit diesem Band öffentlich zur Diskussion gestellt wird. In zwei thematischen Einheiten haben zuerst Philosophen und dann Theologen neue Überlegungen aus ihren Forschungsgebieten vorgetragen und aktuelle Fragestellungen referiert, auf die jeweils ein Vertreter der anderen Fakultät mit kritischen Anfragen erwidert hat. Alle Gesprächseinheiten dieser Art bilden den ersten Teil des (...) vorliegenden Bandes (C.S. Evans/A. Kreiner, P. Valadier/M. Sievernich, F. Ricken/M. Kehl; D. Böhler/H. de Ternay, H.-J. Höhn/M. Dreyer, J.A. Martínez Camino/H.-D. Mutschler, H. Verweyen/J. Splett). Darüber hinaus enthält der Band Beiträge aus dem Kreis der Teilnehmer, die auf die Diskussionen während der Tagung zurückgehen. Zwei geistesgeschichtlich orientierte Aufsätze eröffnen diesen zweiten Teil (R.M.W. Stammberger, R. Berndt). Zwei weitere Texte unterziehen zeitgenössische religionsphilosophische Entwürfe einer kritischen Analyse (G. Kruck, H.-L. Ollig), bevor systematische Skizzen das Buch abschließen (H. Watzka, R. Audi, R. Wimmer). (shrink)

In the recent philosophical literature on inquiry, epistemologists point out that their subject has often begun at the point at which you already have your evidence and then focussed on identifying the beliefs for which that evidence provides justification. But we are not mere passive recipients of evidence. While some comes to us unbidden, we often actively collect it. This has long been recognised, but typically epistemologists have taken the norms that govern inquiry to be practical, not epistemic. The recent (...) literature challenges this assumption and uncovers a rich range of questions about the epistemic normativity of inquiry. In this paper, I approach these questions from the formal side of epistemology. Developing out of the philosophy of science, as it did, this branch of epistemology has long discussed inquiry. And, building on the insights of David Blackwell (1951) and I. J. Good (1967), it has produced a reasonably well-developed framework in which to understand norms of inquiry, both epistemic and practical. In the first half of the paper, I will present the pragmatic versions of this framework due to Blackwell and Good, and the epistemic version due to Wayne Myrvold (2012); in the second half of the paper, I put this framework to work, turning to some of the questions from the recent debate about inquiry and asking how the Blackwell-Good-Myrvold approach can help us answer them. Questions will include: Are there purely epistemic norms that govern these actions (Flores and Woodard forthcoming)? When should we initiate an inquiry, when should we continue it, when should we conclude it, and when should we reopen it? How should we understand Julia Staffel's distinction between transitional attitudes and terminal attitudes (Staffel 2021a,b)? How do epistemic norms of inquiry relate to epistemic norms of belief or credence, and can they conflict (Friedman 2020)? And how should we understand the epistemic error that occurs when someone is resistant to evidence (Simion 2023)? (shrink)

Several philosophers maintain that outright belief exists because it plays a reasoning simplifying role (Holton 2008; Ross and Schroeder 2014; Staffel 2019; Weisberg 2020). This claim has been recently contested, on the grounds that credences also can simplify reasoning (Dinges 2021). This paper takes a step back and asks: what features of an attitude explain its alleged ability to simplify reasoning? The paper contrasts two explanations, one in terms of dispositions and the other in terms of representation, arguing in favour (...) of the latter and against the former. The proposed explanation yields two interesting results: first, both belief and other attitudes, such as acceptance and imagination, can play a reasoning simplifying role; second, credences do not simplify our reasoning. (shrink)

In light of the latest research from cognitive and developmental psychology, this key text explores reasoning, rationality, and democracy, considering the unique nature of each and their relationship to each other. Broadening our understanding from the development of reasoning and rationality in individuals to encompass social considerations of argumentation and democracy, the book connects psychological literature to philosophy, law, political science, and educational policy. Based on psychological research, Moshman sets out a system of deliberative democracy that promotes collaborative reasoning, rational (...) institutions such as science and law, education aimed at the promotion of rationality, and intellectual freedom for all. Also including the biological bases of logic, metacognition, and collaborative reasoning, Moshman argues that, despite systematic flaws in human reasoning, there are reasons for a cautiously optimistic assessment of the potential for human rationality and the prospects for democracy. Reasoning, Argumentation, and Deliberative Democracy will be essential reading for all researchers of thinking and reasoning from psychology, philosophy, and education. (shrink)

By a two-time debating world champion, a dazzling look at how arguing better can transform your life - and the world - for the better.

Was ist Vernunft im Gegensatz zur Sinnlichkeit? Diese Frage erortert der erste Teil dieser Studie, die unterscheidet zwischen Vernunft als Verstehen bzw. Verstand und Vernunft in vollem Sinn: Verstand ist z. B. das Sich-Erinnern an die eigene Vergangenheit, das Vergegenwartigen der Erlebnisse anderer in der Einfuhlung, das Vorausplanen der Zukunft. Vernunft im vollen Sinne dagegen ist Institution des Vergegenwartigens in der Sinnlichkeit oder Kultur, z. B. die menschliche logische Sprache, die Bilder, vergegenwartigende Spiele. Vernunft hat auch mit Erkennen und Wahrheit (...) zu tun, worum es in einem zweiten Teil geht. Hier setzt der Autor sich unter anderem mit tierischem Erleben im Gegensatz zum menschlichen Erkennen, mit naturwissenschaftlichem Erkennen und religiosem Glauben sowie mit Erkennen in den Humanwissenschaften auseinander. An Beispielen aus ganz unterschiedlichen Bereichen, mit vielen Bezugen zur europaischen Philosophie und in sehr personlichem Ton zeigt Iso Kern, was Vernunft ist. (shrink)

A distinctive feature of Juan Comesaña's epistemological account is the possibility of an agent possessing a false proposition as evidence. Comesaña argues that there are a number of theoretical virtues of his account once we accept this possibility, however, one might expect that there are particular vices of his account as well. Littlejohn and Dutant (2021) claim that a reflective agent who accepts Comesaña's view is rationally compelled to update their credences differently than unreflective agents, or else they will be (...) guilty of a problematic kind of doublethink: evidence in general can be false, but my evidence is never false. I argue that parallel reasoning applies to any epistemological view that says that it is possible for a rational agent to be wrong about what their evidence is. When a rational agent reflectively accepts that they could be wrong about their evidence they are rationally compelled to update their credences differently than unreflective agents, or else they will be guilty of a problematic kind of doublethink: even though rational agents in general are wrong about their evidence, I'm never wrong about my evidence. Reflecting on a particular challenge to Comesaña's view ultimately reveals a general challenge to fallibilism. (shrink)

No es pensando como creamos mundos. Es comprendiendo el mundo como aprendemos a pensar. Cosmovisión es un término que debe significar un conjunto de fundamentos a partir de los cuales emerge una comprensión sistémica del Universo, sus componentes como la vida, el mundo en que vivimos, la naturaleza, el fenómeno humano y sus relaciones. Es, por tanto, un campo de la filosofía analítica alimentado por las ciencias, cuyo objetivo es ese conocimiento agregado y epistemológicamente sostenible sobre todo lo que somos (...) y contenemos, que nos rodea y con lo que nos relacionamos de alguna manera. Es algo tan antiguo como el pensamiento humano y, además de utilizar elementos de la cosmología científica, engloba todo lo que en filosofía y ciencia se refiere al universo y la vida. Una cosmovisión no es un conjunto de ideas, hipótesis y suposiciones, sino un sistema basado en la observación, el análisis, la evidencia y la demostración. Ninguna cosmovisión pretende definir, establecer, proponer, sino solo comprender, analizar e interpretar. Cada uno de nosotros construimos y transportamos nuestra cosmovisión a lo largo de nuestra vida, sin establecer formas, como trasfondo de nuestro pensamiento y comportamiento. Lingüísticamente, el término “cosmovisión” se deriva del alemán, equivalente al concepto de “Weltanschauung” utilizado por varios filósofos. Sin embargo, esta relación lingüística no es aplicable porque va en contra de lo que proponemos como cosmovisión. Esta palabra alemana hace referencia a una visión prelógica o protoexperimental de la realidad, con un contexto intuitivo y alejado de un conocimiento crítico que aún no existía en el momento de su formulación. Sin duda, las cosmovisiones, no tiene sentido en que las entendamos, cobijen y utilicen estos elementos proto-experimentales o prelógicos que incluyen la historia, el inconsciente colectivo y todos los arquetipos que portamos. Sin embargo, en el concepto que aquí aplicamos, la cosmovisión va mucho más allá de este contenido, primero al someterlo constantemente al pensamiento crítico actual y, finalmente, al hacer de la experiencia analítica (y no del pensamiento o la intuición en sí) su verdadero universo. António Lopes expone la amplitud de este contenido: -/- “Las cosmovisiones no son el producto del pensamiento. No nacen del simple deseo de saber. La aprehensión de la realidad es un momento importante en su configuración, sin embargo, es uno solo. Proviene de la conducta vital, de la experiencia de vida, de la estructura de nuestra totalidad psíquica. El apoyo de la vida a la conciencia en el conocimiento de la realidad, en la apreciación de la vida y en la realidad volitiva, es el trabajo lento y arduo que ha hecho la humanidad en el desarrollo de los conceptos de vida. (W. Dilthey, 1992 [1911]: 120)” . En este trabajo buscamos esbozar una cosmovisión a partir de las realidades que ofrece la ciencia en la actualidad. No nos proponemos, en ningún momento, hacer ciencia; o teorizar la filosofía, pero siempre buscaremos ser apoyados por ellos o, al menos, protegidos por ellos de las distorsiones cognitivas que solemos llevar. -/- . (shrink)

Rüdiger Bittner argues that the aim of thinking about what to do, of practical reason, is to find, not what we ought to do, but what it is good to do under the circumstances. Neither under prudence nor under morality are there things we ought to do. There is no warrant for the idea of our being required, by natural law or by our rationality, to do either what helps us attain our ends or what is right for moral reasons. (...) While common moral understanding is committed to there being things we ought to do and to our being guilty and deserving blame if we fail to do them, we can lay aside these notions without loss, indeed with benefit. The volume also explains what it is for something to be good to do under the circumstances and argues for understanding practical reason in these terms. What is good to do we find by experience: what we go through teaches us what helps and what hinders, and helps us figure out what is prudentially useful and what is morally right to do-although ultimately this difference itself gives way, and morality turns out to be a part of prudence. (shrink)

La rhetorique n'est pas la discipline qui s'occupe essentiellement des figures de rhetorique: celles-ci ne sont plus qu'un outil parmi d'autres pour persuader et convaincre un auditoire. Dans toute sa generalite, elle constitue une theorie de l'argumentation, qui se sert de raisonnements qu'Aristote qualifiait de dialectiques. En ce sens la rhetorique, qui englobe la dialectique des Anciens, est le pendant de la logique formelle, car c'est l'instrument indispensable de toute pensee qui ne se reduit pas a un calcul. Toute deliberation, (...) toute discussion, toute controverse, toute presentation d'idees nouvelles qui fait appel a la raison, est obligee d'y recourir. La rhetorique est ainsi l'instrument indispensable de toute pensee et de toute philosophie critique. L'etude des techniques d'argumentation, et de leurs presupposes, longtemps negligee par le rationalisme classique, d'inspiration mathematique, est presentee dans ses perspectives historiques et philosophiques. (shrink)

Chaïm Perelman, alone, and in collaboration with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, developed the New Rhetoric Project, which is in use throughout the world. This book offers the first deep contextualization of the project’s origins and original translations of their work from French into English.