Corpus ID: 55444921

Virtue Epistemology and Argumentation Theory

  title={Virtue Epistemology and Argumentation Theory},
  author={Daniel H. Cohen},
Virtue epistemology (VE) was modeled on virtue ethics theories to transfer their ethical insights to epistemology. VE has had great success: broadening our perspective, providing new answers to traditional questions, and raising exciting new questions. I offer a new argument for VE based on the concept of cognitive achievements, a broader notion than purely epistemic achievements. The argument is then extended to cognitive transformations, especially the cognitive transformations brought about… Expand
On the Priority of Agent-Based Argumentative Norms
This paper argues against the priority of pure, virtue-based accounts of argumentative norms [VA]. Such accounts are agent-based and committed to the priority thesis: good arguments and arguing wellExpand
Virtue and Arguers
Abstract Is a virtue approach in argumentation possible without committing the ad hominem fallacy? My answer is affirmative, provided that the object study of our theory is well delimited. MyExpand
Other-Regarding Virtues and Their Place in Virtue Argumentation Theory
In this paper, I argue that, despite the progress made in recent years, virtue argumentation theory still lacks a more systematic acknowledgment of other-regarding virtues. A fuller recognition ofExpand
Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry
This paper examines what constitute the virtues of argumentation or critical thinking and how these virtues might be developed. We argue first that the notion of virtue is more appropriate forExpand
Intellectual Humility, Confidence, and Argumentation
In this paper, I explore the relationship of virtue, argumentation, and philosophical conduct by considering the role of the specific virtue of intellectual humility in the practice of philosophicalExpand
The incompleteness problem for a virtue-based theory of argumentation
The incompleteness problem for virtue ethics is inherited by a virtue-based theory of argumentation as developed by Daniel Cohen (2007). A complete normative theory of argumentation should be able toExpand
Brothers in Arms: Virtue and Pragma-Dialectics
Virtue argumentation theory focuses on the arguers’ character, whereas pragma-dialectics focuses on argumentation as a procedure. In this paper I attempt to explain that both theories are notExpand
Some Limits to Arguing Virtuously
In this paper, I consider whether there are limits to virtuous argumentation in certain situations. I consider three types of cases: 1) arguing against denier discourses, 2) arguing with people whoExpand
Virtuous argumentation and the challenges of hype
In this paper, I consider the virtue of proportionality in relation to reasoning in what I call 'hype contexts' (contexts in which otherwise perfectly temperate claims take on an outsized orExpand
Willingness to inquire: The cardinal critical thinking virtue
Every craft has its set of tools, which the expert craftsperson uses adeptly in her creative efforts. Critical thinking is a craft no different than others in this respect: through guided practiceExpand


Toward a `Responsibilist' Epistemology
The foundationalist pyramid has no ultimate foundations, and the coherentist raft must inevitably find itself adrift. Faced with this impasse, epistemologists might well see a potentially fruitfulExpand
The Epistemological Theory of Argument--How and Why?
The article outlines a general epistemological theory of argument: a theory that regards providingjustified belief as the principal aim of argumentation, and defends it instrumentalistically. AfterExpand
After centuries of obscurity, the study of the virtues is now one of the most prominent methodologies in ethics. Proponents of this so-called ‘aretaic turn’ differ substantially in the details ofExpand
Epistemic Presuppositions and their Consequences
Traditional epistemology has, in the main, presupposed that the primary task is to give a complete account of the concept knowledge and to state under what conditions it is possible to have it. In soExpand
Positive versus negative undermining in belief revision
I am going to compare two competing theories of reasoned belief revision. I will call the theories I am concerned with the "foundations theory of belief revision" and the "coherence theory of beliefExpand
In Defense of the Objective Epistemic Approach to Argumentation
In this paper we defend a particular version of the epistemic approach to argumentation. We advance some general considerations in favor of the approach and then examine the ways in which differentExpand
Arguments and Metaphors in Philosophy
Chapter 1 Preface Chapter 2 Introduction: Philosophical Arguments and Philosophical Metaphors Arguing with God Chapter 3 Arguments in Philosophy: Introduction: Arguments in Philosophy To PhilosophizeExpand
Coalescent argumentation
Coalescent argumentation is a normative ideal that involves the joining together of two disparate claims through recognition and exploration of opposing positions. By uncovering the crucialExpand
Epistemology and Cognition
Introduction Part I: Theoretical Foundations 1. The Elements of Epistemology 2. Skepticism 3. Knowledge 4. Justification: A Rule Framework 5. Justification and Reliability 6. Problem Solving, Power,Expand
Reasons, Warrants and Premisses
I am interested in three questions that arise when one wants to deploy the idea of “rules of inference” which don’t reduce to logical truths, questions whose significance will become salient if weExpand