Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Start Date
6-6-2007 9:00 AM
End Date
9-6-2007 5:00 PM
Abstract
One of the traditional ways in which we manage dissensus is by argumentation, which may be construed as the attempt of the proponent to persuade rationally the other party of the truth (or acceptability) of some thesis. To achieve this, the arguer will often anticipate a possible objection. In this paper, I attempt to shed light on the normative aspect of the task of anticipating objections. I deal with such questions as: How is the arguer to anticipate objections? Which of the anticipated objections are to be dealt with? What is required to deal successfully with an objection?
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Response to Submission
Maurice A. Finocchiaro, Commentary on Johnson
Reader's Reactions
Maurice A. Finocchiaro, Commentary on Johnson (June 2007)
Included in
Anticipating Objections as a Way of Coping With Dissensus
University of Windsor
One of the traditional ways in which we manage dissensus is by argumentation, which may be construed as the attempt of the proponent to persuade rationally the other party of the truth (or acceptability) of some thesis. To achieve this, the arguer will often anticipate a possible objection. In this paper, I attempt to shed light on the normative aspect of the task of anticipating objections. I deal with such questions as: How is the arguer to anticipate objections? Which of the anticipated objections are to be dealt with? What is required to deal successfully with an objection?
