Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Levels of Depth in Deep Disagreement.Duran Claudio - unknown
    The concept of deep disagreement was introduced by Richard Fogelin in a 1985 paper published in Critical Thinking. Since then, about 12 papers have been published in journals or presented in conferences on argumentation theory. All these papers relate back to the initial Fogelin paper. Andrew Lugg’s 1986 critical response to Fogelin introduces significant questions concerning his views. Peter Davson-Galle in 1992, takes a more positive approach to them. The more extensive publication on deep disagreement can be found in a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Another Dimension to Deep Disagreements: Trust in Argumentation.L. Kloster Moira - unknown
    I will connect the literature on deep disagreements with the literature on trust to construct a two-dimensional picture of the limits of argument. Argumentation and trust are important to the functioning of society, but each sets different expectations for when arguments can and should be used to resolve disagreements. When trust is factored in, we see a more nuanced picture of which disagreements will remain too deep for objective argument. Affective and social aspects of argument are not independent of procedure (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Deep Disagreements: A Meta-Argumentation Approach.Maurice Finocchiaro & David M. Godden - unknown
    This paper examines the views of Fogelin, Woods, Johnstone, etc., concerning deep disa-greements, force-five standoffs, philosophical controversies, etc. My approach is to reconstruct their views and critiques of them as meta-arguments, and to elaborate the meta-argumentative aspects of radical disa-greements. It turns out that deep disagreements are resolvable to a greater degree than usually thought, but only by using special principles and practices, such as meta-argumentation, ad hominem argumentation, Ramsey’s principle, etc.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Beyond Argument: A Hegelian Approach to Deep Disagreements.Connie Wang - forthcoming - Symposion. Theoretical and Applied Inquiries in Philosophy and Social Sciences.
    Connie Wang ABSTRACT: Accounts of deep disagreements can generally be categorized as optimistic or pessimistic. Pessimistic interpretations insist that the depth of deep disagreements precludes the possibility of rational resolution altogether, while optimistic variations maintain the contrary. Despite both approaches’ respective positions, they nevertheless often, either explicitly or implicitly, agree on the underlying assumption that...
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Revisiting Deep Disagreement.Dale Turner & Larry Wright - 2005 - Informal Logic 25 (1):25-35.
    Argument-giving reasons for a view-is our model of rational dispute resolution. Fogelin suggests that certain "deep" disagreements cannot be resolved in this way because features of their context "undercut the conditions essential to arguing" . In this paper we add some detail to Fogelin's treatment of intractable disagreements. In doing so we distinguish between his relatively modest claim that some disputes cannot be resolved through argument and his more radical claim that such disputes are beyond rational resolution. This distinction, along (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Commentary On: Chris Campolo's "Argumentative Virtues and Deep Disagreement".David M. Godden - unknown
  • Meta-Argumentation in Hume’s Critique of the Design Argument.Maurice A. Finocchiaro - unknown
    Although Hume’s critique of the design argument is a powerful non-inductive meta-argument, the main line of critical reasoning is not analogical but rather a complex meta-argument. It consists of two parts, one interpretive, the other evaluative. The critical meta-argument advances twelve criticisms: that the design argument is weak because two of its three premises are justified by inadequate subarguments; because its main inference embodies four flaws; and because the conclusion is in itself problematic for four reasons. Such complexity is quite (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation