Argumentation Mar 2023 Open Access

The Persistent Interlocutor

Job de Grefte University of Groningen

Abstract

AbstractA Persistent Interlocutor (PI) is someone who, in argumentative contexts, does not cease to question her opponent’s premises. The epistemic relevance of the PI has been debated throughout the history of philosophy. Pyrrhonians famously claim that our inability to dialectically vindicate our claims against a PI implies scepticism. Adam Leite disagrees (2005). Michael Resorla argues that the debate is based on a false premise (2009). In this paper, I argue that these views all fail to accurately account for the epistemic relevance of the PI. I then briefly present an account that aims to do better in this regard, based on the modal notion of safety. On the account proposed, the PI does not violate epistemic or dialectical norms. Rather, her behaviour tends to be epistemically perverse in the sense that it wastes cognitive resources. Perhaps surprisingly, this defect turns out not to be unique to the PI.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2023-03-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-022-09578-2
CompPile
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
argument
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Hassanein (2026)
    “argument as war”: A Synergy of Metadiscourse and Pragma-dialectics in Explorin…
    Argumentation

References (31) · 2 in this index

  1. Adler, J. 2002. Belief’s Own Ethics. MIT Press.
     ↗
  2. Albert, H., and M. V. Rorty. 1985. Treatise on Critical Reason. Princeton University Press.
     ↗
  3. WP Alston (1988)
    Alston, W. P. 1988. An Internalist Externalism. Synthese 74 (3): 265–283.
    Synthese  ↗
  4. J Barnes (1990)
    The toils of scepticism
  5. Barth, E. M., and E. C. W. Krabbe. 1982. From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argument…
     ↗
Show all 31 →
  1. Brandom, R. B. 1994. Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. vol. 183. Harvar…
  2. Douven, I. 2017. Abduction. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 201, 1–22). Metaphysics Research Lab,…
  3. Dutilh-Novaes, C. 2020. The dialogical roots of deduction: Historical, cognitive, and philosophical perspecti…
     ↗
  4. FH van Eemeren (2003)
    A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach
     ↗
  5. M Frede (1987)
    Essays in ancient philosophy
  6. Friedberg, B. 2020. The Dark Virality of a Hollywood Blood-Harvesting Conspiracy.
  7. AI Goldman (1979)
    Justification and knowledge
  8. Goldman, A. I. 2003. An epistemological approach to argumentation. Informal Logic, 23(1).
     ↗
  9. Greco, J. 2010. Achieving knowledge: A virtue-theoretic account of epistemic normativity. Cambridge Universit…
     ↗
  10. Krabbe et al. (2011)
    The Ways of Criticism
    Argumentation
  11. A Leite (2004)
    Leite, A. 2004. On justifying and being justified. Philosophical Issues 14: 219–253.
    Philosophical Issues  ↗
  12. A Leite (2005)
    Leite, A. 2005. A localist solution to the regress of epistemic justification. Australasian Journal of Philos…
    Australasian Journal of Philosophy  ↗
  13. C Lumer (2005)
    Lumer, C. 2005. The Epistemological Theory of Argument–How and Why? Informal Logic 25 (3): 213–243.
    Informal Logic  ↗
  14. (1973)
    Theaetetus
  15. Pritchard, D. 2005. Epistemic luck. Journal of Philosophical Research (Vol. 29). New York, NY: Oxford Univers…
     ↗
  16. D Pritchard (2007)
    Pritchard, D. 2007. Anti-Luck Epistemology. Synthese 158 (3): 277–297.
    Synthese  ↗
  17. M Rescorla (2008)
    Rescorla, M. 2008. Shifting the burden of proof? The Philosophical Quarterly 59 (234): 86–109.
    The Philosophical Quarterly  ↗
  18. M Rescorla (2009)
    Rescorla, M. 2009. Epistemic and Dialectical Regress. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (1): 43–60.
    Australasian Journal of Philosophy  ↗
  19. Siegel et al. (1997)
    Epistemic Normativity, Argumentation, and Fallacies
    Argumentation
  20. E Sosa (1999)
    Sosa, E. 1999. How to Defeat Opposition to Moore. Nous 33 (s13): 141–153.
    Nous  ↗
  21. E Sosa (2007)
    A Virtue Epistemology
     ↗
  22. Stoutenburg, G. 2017. Think of the Children! Epistemic Justification and Cognitively Unsophisticated Subjects…
     ↗
  23. Williams, M. 2004. The Agrippan argument and two forms of skepticism. In Pyrrhonian Skepticism, ed. W. Sinnot…
     ↗
  24. T Williamson (2009)
    Williamson, T. 2009. Probability and Danger. The Amherst Lecture in Philosophy 4: 1–35.
    The Amherst Lecture in Philosophy
  25. Job de Grefte (2018)
    de Grefte, J. (2018). Epistemic justification and epistemic luck. Synthese, 195(9), 3821–3836.
    Synthese  ↗
  26. de Grefte, J. (2021) Knowledge as Justified True Belief. Erkenntnis
     ↗
CrossRef global citation count: 0 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Related Articles

  1. Argumentation Apr 2026
    A Normative Pragmatic Inquiry into the Volatility of Norms in Argumentation ↗
    Sally Jackson
    discourse analysis argument qualitative research public rhetoric
  2. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly Apr 2026
    Book Review: Environmental Preservation and the Grey Cliffs Conflict: Negotiating Common Narratives, Values, and Ethos PickeringK. (2024). Environmental Preservation and the Grey Cliffs Conflict: Negotiating Common Narratives, Values, and Ethos. Utah State University Press, 268 pp. ↗
    Mia Twomey
    argument book reviews
  3. Res Rhetorica Apr 2026
    Logos in ancient Greek discourse on rhetoric: An overview ↗
    Arkadiusz Sokolnicki
    classical rhetoric rhetorical criticism discourse analysis argument
  4. Assessing Writing Apr 2026
    Associations of adolescents’ argumentative writing scores and growth when evaluated by different human raters and artificial intelligence models ↗
    Deborah K. Reed; Sterett Mercer
    argument artificial intelligence
  5. Rhetoric of Health and Medicine Apr 2026
    Psyche or Soma?: An Analysis of the Medical Debates Over the Diagnosis and Treatment of “Transsexualism” ↗
    Samantha Rippetoe
    rhetorical criticism argument archival research