Journal
Argumentation
Published
2014-03-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-013-9300-4
CompPile
Open Access
Closed
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

  1. Argumentation
  2. Technical Communication Quarterly

References (71)

  1. Alston, W. 1988. The deontological conception of epistemic justification. Philosophical Perspectives 2: 257–299.
    Philosophical Perspectives  
  2. Andersen, H., P. Barker, and X. Chen. 2006. The cognitive structure of scientific revolutions. Cambridge: Cam…
  3. Scientific controversies
  4. Barker, P. 2011. The cognitive structure of scientific revolutions. Erkenntnis 75(3): 445–465.
  5. Controversies and subjectivity
Show all 71 →
  1. Making it explicit
  2. Cheng, X., and P. Barker. 2000. Continuity through revolutions: A frame-based account of conceptual change du…
  3. Chignell, A. 2010. The Ethics of Belief. In Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E. Zalta, http://plato/s…
  4. Chisholm, R.M. 1956. Epistemic statements and the ethics of belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research …
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research  
  5. Christensen, D. 2007. Epistemology of disagreement: the good news. Philosophical Review 116(2): 187–217.
    Philosophical Review  
  6. Christensen, D. 2009. Disagreement as evidence: The epistemology of controversy. Philosophy Compass 4(5): 756–767.
    Philosophy Compass  
  7. The epistemology of disagreement
  8. Clifford, W.K. 1877/1999. The ethics of belief. In The ethics of belief and other essays, ed. T. Madigan, 70–…
  9. Making science. Between nature and society
  10. Dascal, M. 1995. Epistemology, controversies and pragmatics, spanish original version published. Isegoría 12:…
  11. Dascal, M., and G. Freudenthal (eds.). 1998. Controversies in Science, Special issue of Science in Context.
  12. Davidson, D. 1974. On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philoso…
    Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association  
  13. Devitt, M. 1979. Against incommensurability. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 57: 29–50.
    Australasian Journal of Philosophy  
  14. Incomensurability and related matters
  15. de Donato Rodríguez, X. and J. Zamora Bonilla 2009. Credibility, idealisation, and model building: An inferen…
  16. de Donato Rodríguez, X. and J. Zamora Bonilla. 2012. Explanation and modelization in a comprehensive inferent…
  17. Elga, A. 2007. Reflection and disagreement. Noûs 41(3): 478–502.
    Noûs  
  18. Elga, A. 2010. How to disagree about how to disagree. In Disagreement, ed. Feldman and Warfield, Chapter 7, 1…
  19. Scientific controversies
  20. Feldman, R. 2000. The ethics of belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60(3): 667–695.
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research  
  21. Disagreement
  22. Ferreira, A. 2005. On the role of pragmatics, rhetoric and dialectic in scientific controversies. In Controve…
  23. Scientific controversies
  24. Glüer, K., and A. Wikforss. 2009. The Normativity of meaning and content. In Stanford encyclopaedia of philos…
  25. Goldman, A. 1999. Internalism exposed. The Journal of Philosophy 96: 271–293.
    The Journal of Philosophy  
  26. Goldman, A. 2010. Epistemic relativism and reasonable disagreement. In Disagreement, ed. Feldman and Warfield…
  27. Scientific controversies
  28. Gutting, G. 1982. Religious Belief and Religious Skepticism. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
  29. Fallacies
  30. Hartmann, S., C. Martini, and J. Sprenger. 2009. Consensual decision-making among epistemic peers. Episteme 6…
  31. James, W. 1896/1979. The will to believe. In The will to believe and other essays in popular philosophy, eds.…
  32. Jehle, D., and B. Fitelson. 2009. What is the ‘equal weight view’? Episteme 6(3): 280–293.
    Episteme  
  33. Oxford studies in epistemology
  34. Kelly, Th. 2010. Peer Disagreement and higher-order evidence. In Disagreement, ed. Feldman and Warfield, Chap…
  35. The advancement of science
  36. Scientific controversies
  37. Kornblith, H. 2010. Belief in the face of controversy. In Disagreement, ed. Feldman and Warfield, Chapter 2, …
  38. Kuhn, T.S. 1977/2000. Rationality and theory choice. In The road since structure, ed Conant and Haugeland, 20…
  39. Kuhn, T.S. 1981/2000. Commensurability, comparability, communicability. In The Road since Structure, ed Conan…
  40. Controversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory
  41. The Methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers
  42. Science and values
  43. Lehrer, K. 1976. When rational disagreement is impossible. Noûs 10: 327–332.
    Noûs  
  44. Convention: A philosophical study
  45. Locke, J. 1690/1975. An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford: Clarendon.
  46. Scientific controversies
  47. Scientific controversies
  48. Sociology of science
  49. Controversies and subjectivity
  50. The discourses of science
  51. Scientific controversies
  52. Persuading science: The art of scientific rhetoric, Canton
  53. Pettit, Ph. 2006. When to defer to majority testimony—and when not. Analysis 66(3): 179–187.
    Analysis  
  54. Warrant: The current debate
  55. The philosophical challenge of religious diversity
  56. Personal knowledge
  57. Popper, K.R. 1959/2002. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.
  58. Reason, truth and history
  59. Social epistemology
  60. Speech acts in argumentative discussions
  61. A systematic theory of argumentation
  62. Controversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory
  63. Commitment in dialogue
  64. Zamora Bonilla, J. 2006a. Science studies and the theory of games. Perspectives on Science 14(4): 525–557.
  65. Zamora Bonilla, J. 2006b. Science as a persuasion game: An inferentialist approach. Episteme 2(3): 189–201.
  66. Controversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory