Argumentation and Pseudoscience
Argumentation and Pseudoscience
The Case for an Ethics of Argumentation
This chapter discusses the ethics of argumentation about pseudoscience. It asks, if we take into account all the real-life aspects of a debate, a discussion, or an argumentation, what does it mean to defend a thesis, a position, or a claim in an efficient way? It first explains the standard view of the ideal reasoner. It then considers the five elements that characterize the ideal logician's attitude (ILA) to determine the changes needed achieve a more realistic picture. Next, it addresses the following question: what does the revised picture imply for the practice of debate, discussion, and argument? Two case studies are presented: the first investigates what the possibilities are to attack or to counter fallacies with “fallacies” of our own; the second case deals with misleading and cheating.
Keywords: ethics, debates, pseudoscience, ideal reasoner, human reasoner, argumentation
Chicago Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.
