Argumentation 22 (4):571-584 (2008)

Scott Aikin
Vanderbilt University
There is a tension with regard to regulative norms of inquiry. One’s commitments must survive critical scrutiny, and if they do not survive, they should be revised. Alternately, for views to be adequately articulated and defended, their proponents must maintain a strong commitment to the views in question. A solution is proposed with the notion of holding one’s own as the virtue of being reason-responsive with the prospects of improving the view in question
Keywords Argumentative rules  Refutation  Tenacity  Falliblism
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10503-007-9066-7
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,114
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Intention.G. E. M. Anscombe - 1957 - Harvard University Press.
Change in View: Principles of Reasoning.Gilbert Harman - 1986 - Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.Thomas Kelly - 2005 - In John Hawthorne & Tamar Gendler (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Volume 1. Oxford University Press. pp. 167-196.
Change in View.Gilbert Harman - 1986 - Behaviorism 16 (1):93-96.

View all 27 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Rhetorical Theory of Argument is Self-Defeating.Scott F. Aikin - 2011 - Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 3 (1).

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
49 ( #229,319 of 2,499,262 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #418,195 of 2,499,262 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes