Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (forthcoming)
AbstractFeminists note an association of arguing with aggression and masculinity and question the necessity of this connection. Arguing also seems to some to identify a central method of philosophical reasoning, and gendered assumptions and standards would pose problems for the discipline. Can feminine modes of reasoning provide an alternative or supplement? Can overarching epistemological standards account for the benefits of different approaches to arguing? These are some of the prospects for argumentation inside and outside of philosophy that feminists consider. The further concern is that the academic study of argumentation – in philosophy and other disciplines – has failed to account for the type of reasoning needed for social justice movements. What resources for addressing these concerns can be found in informal logic and interdisciplinary argumentation theory? Since part of the perceived problem derives from assuming that arguing is a contest, are more collaborative epistemological frameworks better? Can regular politeness or civility hedge against undesirable tendencies of argumentation? Can “critical thinking” pedagogy involving argument educations answer the needs of social justice?
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation.Chaïm Perelman & Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca - 1969 - Notre Dame, IN, USA: Notre Dame University Press.
Citations of this work
Epistemic Diversity and the Question of Lingua Franca in Science and Philosophy.Federico Gobbo & Federica Russo - 2020 - Foundations of Science 25 (1):185-207.
Similar books and articles
The Authority of the Fallacies Approach to Argument Evaluation.Catherine Hundleby - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (3):279-308.
Critical Thinking in Moral Argumentation Contexts: A Virtue Ethical Approach.Michelle Ciurria - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (2):242-258.
Epistemic Normativity, Argumentation, and Fallacies.Harvey Siegel & John Biro - 1997 - Argumentation 11 (3):277-292.
Which of the Fallacies Are Fallacies of Relevance?Douglas N. Walton - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):237-250.
Philosophy, Adversarial Argumentation, and Embattled Reason.Phyllis Rooney - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (3):203-234.
Mercier and Sperber's Argumentative Theory of Reasoning: From Psychology of Reasoning to Argumentation Studies.Cristián Santibáñez Yáñez - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (1):132-159.
The Locus of the Myside Bias in Written Argumentation.M. Anne Britt & Christopher R. Wolfe - 2008 - Thinking and Reasoning 14 (1):1-27.
The Port-Royal Logic's Theory of Argument.Maurice A. Finocchiaro - 1997 - Argumentation 11 (4):393-410.
The Dialectic of Second-Order Distinctions: The Structure of Arguments About Fallacies.David Goodwin - 1992 - Informal Logic 14 (1).