Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Keywords
ad hominem argument, complex argumentation, controversies, disagreements, fair-mindedness, Fogelin, Johnstone, meta-argumentation, open-mindedness, Woods
Start Date
18-5-2011 9:00 AM
End Date
21-5-2011 5:00 PM
Abstract
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 (in Johnstone’s sense), Ramsey’s principle, etc.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Included in
Deep disagreements: A meta-argumentation approach
University of Windsor
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 (in Johnstone’s sense), Ramsey’s principle, etc.
