Searching for Common Ground on Hamas Through Logical Argument Mapping

Abstract

Robert Fogelin formulated the thesis “that deep disagreements cannot be resolved through the use of argument, for they undercut the conditions essential to arguing.” The possibility of arguing presupposes “a shared background of beliefs and preferences,” and if such a background is not given, there is no way of “rational” dispute resolution. By contrast to this pessimistic view, I will propose a method that has been developed to overcome difficulties as described by Fogelin.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

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

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

My notes

Similar books and articles

Investigating the Shared Background Required for Argument: A Critique of Fogelin’s Thesis on Deep Disagreement.Dana Phillips - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (2):86-101.
Logical Argument Mapping: A cognitive-change-based method for building common ground.Michael H. G. Hoffmann - 2007 - Acm International Conference Proceeding Series; Vol. 280. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Pragmatic Web.
Revisiting deep disagreement.Dale Turner & Larry Wright - 2005 - Informal Logic 25 (1):25-35.
Analyzing Framing Processes in Conflicts and Communication by Means of Logical Argument Mapping.Michael H. G. Hoffmann - 1996 - In Das Problem der Zukunft im Rahmen holistischer Ethiken. Im Ausgang von Platon und Peirce. Edition Tertium.
Arguing, Arguments, and Deep Disagreements.Peter Davson-Galle - 1992 - Informal Logic 14 (2).
The Limits of Critical Thinking.Don S. Levi - 1992 - Informal Logic 14 (2).
Common ground and modal disagreement.David Hunter - 2007 - In H. V. Hanson (ed.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground. pp. 134-143.
God, Totality and Possibility in Kant's Only Possible Argument.Peter Yong - 2014 - Kantian Review 19 (1):27-51.
Changing Philosophy Through Technology: Complexity and Computer-Supported Collaborative Argument Mapping.Michael H. G. Hoffmann - 2015 - Philosophy and Technology 28 (2):167-188.
Deepening disagreement in engineering education.Robert Irish & Brian Macpherson - unknown
Deep Disagreement, Rational Resolutions, and Critical Thinking.Richard Feldman - 2005 - Informal Logic 25 (1):12-23.
Logical argument mapping: A method for overcoming cognitive problems of conflict management.Michael H. G. Hoffmann - 2005 - International Journal of Conflict Management 16:304-334.
From Argument to Assertion.Michael S. Kochin - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (3):387-396.
Prolepsis: Dealing with Multiple Viewpoints in Argument.Patrick Clauss - 2007 - In Christopher W. Tindale Hans V. Hansen (ed.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground. Ossa. pp. 1--17.
Wittgenstein and the logic of deep disagreement.David Godden & William H. Brenner - 2010 - Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 2:41-80.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-04-02

Downloads
22 (#692,982)

6 months
7 (#418,426)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Michael H. G. Hoffmann
Georgia Institute of Technology

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Knowledge in a social world.Alvin I. Goldman - 1991 - New York: Oxford University Press.
The logic of deep disagreements.Robert Fogelin - 1985 - Informal Logic 7 (1):3-11.
Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory.Douglas N. Walton - 1996 - Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.
Why reason can't be naturalized.Hilary Putnam - 1983 - In Realism and reason. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 3-24.
Why Reason Can’t Be Naturalized.Hilary Putnam - 1982 - Synthese 52 (1):229--47.

View all 16 references / Add more references