Rational consensual procedure: Argumentation or weighted averaging?

Synthese 71 (3):347 - 354 (1987)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The following is a defense of Jurgen Habermas' argumentational consensual procedure against Keith Lehrer and Carl Wagner's weighted averaging consensual procedure (and, I tentatively claim, against any weighted averaging consensual procedure). The argument is twofold: if Lehrer and Wagner intend, implicity, to replace what is for Habermas the metatheoretical stage of a discussion with the aggregation of judgments of respect, then their procedure fails to make use of all available information and the participants are not committed to the weighted average position on these grounds; if, on the other hand, they do not intend to replace metatheoretical discussion by aggregation, then the conditions under which the discussion could conceivably have come to a halt are such as to provide no support for the claim that it is rational to aggregate, rather than to consider the discussion unresolved until more information is available.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,907

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
63 (#261,880)

6 months
8 (#411,508)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

An Informal Logic Bibliography.Hans V. Hansen - 1990 - Informal Logic 12 (3).
Committees and consensus: How many heads are better than one?Peter Caws - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (4):375-391.
The Moral Authority of Consensus.Paul Walker & Terence Lovat - 2022 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 47 (3):443-456.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Add more references