The Limits of Critical Thinking

Authors

  • Don S. Levi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v14i2.2536

Keywords:

Deep disagreement, critical thinking, argumentative exchange, point of view, framework propositions, inarguability, conceptual framework, rule-governed activity, what is at issue, issue raised by argument, participant

Abstract

This paper examines Robert Fogelin's suggestion that there may be deep disagreements, where no argument can address what is at issue. A number of possible bases for Fogelin's position are considered and rejected: people sometimes do not have enough in common for reasons to count as reasons; doubt is possible only against the background of framework propositions; key premises may be inarguable; argument must occur within a conceptual framework. The paper concludes by reflecting on why it is important to have a point of view when thinking critically about an argument and whether that fact constitutes a limitation as to what can be achieved by critical thinking.

Downloads

Published

1992-01-01

Issue

Vol. 14 No. 2 (1992)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright for each article published in Informal Logic belongs to its author(s). Informal Logic has the right of first publication. Permission to reprint any article that appears in Informal Logic MUST be obtained in writing from the author(s). In addition to any form of acknowledgement required by the author(s), the following notice must be added to the statement of copyright permission made in the reprint (with the appropriate numbers replacing the ellipses): [Article Title] was originally published in Informal Logic, [year], Volume ..., Number ..., pp. ...-... .