Abstract

AbstractArgumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interactions that generate and justify reasonable public policies. Adopting an argumentation-theoretic perspective, we survey the norms that should govern public argumentation and address some of the complexities that scholarly treatments have identified. Our focus is on norms associated with the ideals of correctness and participation as sources of a politically legitimate deliberative outcome. In principle, both ideals are mutually coherent. If the information needed for a correct deliberative outcome is distributed among agents, then maximising participation increases information diversity. But both ideals can also be in tension. If participants lack competence or are prone to biases, a correct deliberative outcome requires limiting participation. The central question for public argumentation, therefore, is how to strike a balance between both ideals. Rather than advocating a preferred normative framework, our main purpose is to illustrate the complexity of this theme.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2024-03-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-023-09598-6
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (6)

  1. Argumentation
  2. Argumentation
  3. Argumentation
  4. Argumentation
  5. Argumentation
Show all 6 →
  1. Argumentation

Cites in this index (19)

  1. Argumentation
  2. Argumentation
  3. Argumentation
  4. Argumentation
  5. Argumentation
Show all 19 →
  1. Argumentation
  2. Argumentation
  3. Argumentation
  4. Philosophy & Rhetoric
  5. Argumentation
  6. Argumentation
  7. Argumentation
  8. Argumentation
  9. Argumentation
  10. Argumentation
  11. Argumentation
  12. Argumentation
  13. Argumentation
  14. Argumentation
Also cites 87 works outside this index ↓
  1. Aakhus M., and M. Lewiński. 2011. Argument analysis in large-scale deliberation. In Keeping in touch with pra…
  2. Aikin, S. 2020. The owl of minerva problem. Southwest Philosophy Review 36 (1): 13–22.
    Southwest Philosophy Review  
  3. Atienza, M. 2020. What is the theory of legal argumentation for? International Journal for the Semiotics of L…
    International Journal for the Semiotics of Law  
  4. How to measure the quality of judicial reasoning
  5. Benhabib, S. 1994. Deliberative rationality and models of democratic legitimacy. Constellations 1 (1): 26–52.
    Constellations  
  6. Bertea, S. 2005. The arguments from coherence: Analysis and evaluation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 25 (3…
    Oxford Journal of Legal Studies  
  7. Biro, J., and H. Siegel. 2006. In defense of the objective epistemic approach to argumentation. Informal Logi…
    Informal Logic  
  8. Blair, J.A. 2012. Groundwork in the theory of argumentation. Selected papers of J. Anthony Blair. Dordrecht: …
  9. Brandom, R. 1983. Asserting. Noûs 17 (4): 637–650.
    Asserting. Noûs  
  10. Carnap, R. 1947. On the application of inductive logic. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 8: 133–148.
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research  
  11. Chambers, S. 2017. Balancing epistemic quality and equal participation in a system approach to deliberative d…
    Social Epistemology  
  12. Ciardelli, I., and F. Roelofsen. 2011. Inquisitive logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 40: 55–94.
    Journal of Philosophical Logic  
  13. Cooke, M. 1997. Authenticity and autonomy: Taylor, Habermas, and the politics of recognition. Political Theor…
    Political Theory  
  14. De Brabanter, P., and P. Dendale. 2008. Commitment: The term and the notions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics …
    Belgian Journal of Linguistics  
  15. DeRose, K. 1996. Knowledge, assertion and lotteries. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74 (4): 568–580.
    Australasian Journal of Philosophy  
  16. Dryzek, J., and C. List. 2003. Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: a reconciliation. British Jou…
    British Journal of Political Science  
  17. Principles of electoral reform
  18. Dung, P.M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic …
    Artificial Intelligence  
  19. The epistemology of fake news
  20. van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A Theoretical model …
  21. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: extending the pragma-dialectical theory…
  22. Deliberative democracy: essays on reason and politics
  23. Evans St, J.B.T. 2012. Questions and challenges for the new psychology of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning 18 …
    Thinking & Reasoning  
  24. Fundamentals of legal argumentation: a survey of theories on the justification of judicia…
  25. Fogelin, R. 1985. The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic 7: 1–8.
    Informal Logic  
  26. Fricker, E. 2012. Stating and insinuating. Aristotelian Society Supplementary 86 (1): 61–94.
    Aristotelian Society Supplementary  
  27. Handbook of social choice and welfare
  28. Godden, D., and F. Zenker. 2018. A probabilistic analysis of argument cogency. Synthese 195: 1715–1740.
    Synthese  
  29. Knowledge in a social world
  30. Goldman, A.I. 2001. Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (1): 85–110.
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research  
  31. Goodwin, J. 2007. Argument has no function. Informal Logic 27 (1): 69–90.
    Informal Logic  
  32. Argumentation and artificial intelligence
  33. Green, M.S. 2009. Speech acts, the handicap principle and the expression of psychological states. Mind & Lang…
    Mind & Language  
  34. Why deliberative democracy
  35. Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy
  36. Inquiry as inquiry: a logic of scientific discovery
  37. Hinton, M. 2019. Why the fence is the seat of reason when experts disagree. Social Epistemology 33 (2): 160–171.
    Social Epistemology  
  38. Evaluating the language of argument
  39. Hornsby, J., and R. Langton. 1998. Free speech and illocution. Legal Theory 4 (1): 21–37.
    Legal Theory  
  40. Anyone who has a view: argumentation library
  41. From sign to text: a semiotic view of communication
  42. Disagreement
  43. Kneer, M. 2018. The norm of assertion: Empirical data. Cognition 177: 165–171.
    Cognition  
  44. Kukla, R. 2014. Performative force, convention, and discursive injustice. Hypatia 29 (2): 440–457.
    Hypatia  
  45. Lackey, J. 2007. Norms of assertion. Nous 41 (4): 594–626.
    Nous  
  46. Lafont, C. 2012. Agreement and consent in Kant and Habermas: Can Kantian constructivism be fruitful for democ…
    The Philosophical Forum  
  47. Landemore, H. 2017. Beyond the fact of disagreement? The epistemic turn in deliberative democracy. Social Epi…
    Social Epistemology  
  48. Lewiński, M. 2017. Practical argumentation and reasoned advocacy. Informal Logic 37: 85–113.
    Informal Logic  
  49. Lewiński, M. 2022. Challenging authority with argumentation: the pragmatics of arguments from and to authorit…
    Languages  
  50. Lewis, D. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359.
    Journal of Philosophical Logic  
  51. List, C., R. Luskin, J. Fishkin, and I. Mclean. 2013. Deliberation, single-peakedness, and the possibility of…
    The Journal of Politics  
  52. Lumer, C. 2005. The epistemological theory of argument – how and why? Informal Logic 25: 213–243.
    Informal Logic  
  53. Rhetoric and the rule of law: a theory of legal reasoning
  54. Assertion: new philosophical essays
  55. Post-truth
  56. Mansbridge, J. 2012. Conflict and commonality in Habermas’s structural transformation of the public sphere. P…
    Political Theory  
  57. The race card: campaign strategy, implicit messages, and the norm of equality
  58. Mercier, H., and D. Sperber. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral an…
    Behavioral and Brain Sciences  
  59. Miller, D. 2007. Deliberative democracy and social choice. Political Studies 40: 54–67.
    Political Studies  
  60. Morreau, M. 2020. Democracy without enlightenment: A jury theorem for evaluative voting. Journal of Political…
    Journal of Political Philosophy  
  61. Nyhan, B., and J. Reifler. 2010. When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Politica…
    Political Behavior  
  62. Peel, J., and H. Osofsky. 2018. A rights turn in climate change litigation? Transnational Environmental Law 7…
    Transnational Environmental Law  
  63. A Theory of Justice
  64. Ricco, R.B., and W.F. Overton. 2011. Dual systems competence–procedural processing: A relational developmenta…
    Developmental Review  
  65. Roy, O., and S.R. Rad. 2021. Deliberation, single-peakedness and coherent aggregation. American Political Sci…
    American Political Science Review  
  66. Sanders, L. 1997. Against deliberation. Political Theory 25: 347–377.
    Political Theory  
  67. Utilitarianism and beyond
  68. Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language
  69. Utilitarianism for and against
  70. Smart, P. 2018. Mandevillian intelligence. Synthese 195 (9): 4169–4200.
    Synthese  
  71. Human reasoning and cognitive science
  72. Sugden, R. 2003. The logic of team reasoning. Philosophical Explorations 6 (3): 165–181.
    Philosophical Explorations  
  73. Sunstein, C.R., Hastie, R. 2008. Four failures of deliberating groups. Public Law & Legal Theory Working Pape…
  74. Inequality
  75. Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of Theory and Practice
  76. The Philosophy of argument and audience reception
  77. Turri, J. 2015. Selfless assertions: Some empirical evidence. Synthese 192 (4): 1221–1233.
    Synthese  
  78. Courts and the environment
  79. Wagemans, J.H.M. 2019. Four basic argument forms. Research in Language 17 (1): 57–69. 
    Research in Language  
  80. The Cambridge handbook of the philosophy of language
  81. The new dialectic: conversational contexts of argument
  82. Argumentation Schemes
  83. Weiner, M. 2005. Must we know what we say? The Philosophical Review 114 (2): 227–251.
    The Philosophical Review  
  84. Williamson, T. 1996. Knowing and asserting. The Philosophical Review 105 (4): 489–523.
    The Philosophical Review  
  85. The posing of questions: logical foundations of Erotetic inferences
  86. Witek, M. 2015. Mechanisms of illocutionary games. Language and Communication 42: 11–22.
    Language and Communication  
  87. Zenker, F., J.A. van Laar, P. Abreu, M. Bengtsson, D. Castro, M. Cooke, I. Danka, B. De Cock, C. Dutilh Novae…
    SocArXiv Preprints