Whataboutisms have received scant attention in argumentation theory, yet they are common persuasi... more Whataboutisms have received scant attention in argumentation theory, yet they are common persuasive moves in debates about social and political issues and can occur in the form of arguments. This paper analyses these arguments, showing that while whataboutisms tend to make for bad arguments, there can be instances of good argument employing a whataboutist move. The final section of the paper considers arguments employing whataboutsims as instances of argumentative harm.
International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 2009
Abstract At several points in his later writings Wittgenstein discusses imaginary forms of life a... more Abstract At several points in his later writings Wittgenstein discusses imaginary forms of life and ways of thinking that appear queer or alien from our point of view; concepts so different from ours that those who think from within them seem to be alternatives to us. In this paper I argue that reflection on the notions of difference and possibility in play here shows that imaginary cases of alien conceptual schemes or forms of life such as those considered by Wittgenstein are not all cases of concepts that are entirely unintelligible for us; rather they may represent possible, albeit distant, ways of thinking for us. Such cases serve to aid imaginative reflection on our own case(s). By making us appreciate the possibility of the strange, they help us better to appreciate the arbitrariness of the familiar. I end the paper by considering what the implications of this reading of Wittgenstein’s position might be for Donald Davidson’s rejection of conceptual relativism.
In this paper, I consider whether there are limits to virtuous argumentation in certain situation... more 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 who make bigoted claims, and 3) cases in which marginalised people are expected to exercise virtues of argument from a position of limited agency. For each type of case, I look at where limits to arguing responsibly might be drawn. I argue that there are situations in which we might withdraw from engagement for practical reasons and others in which withdrawing or refraining from engagement is a responsible way to deal with a particular position. Finally, I argue that in the third type of case, expecting the marginalised to argue as though on even terms with the positions of the dominant risks perpetrating argumentative harm.
In this paper we consider the prospects for an account of good argument that takes the character ... more In this paper we consider the prospects for an account of good argument that takes the character of the arguer into consideration. We conclude that although there is much to be gained by identifying the virtues of the good arguer and by considering the ways in which these virtues can be developed in ourselves and in others, virtue argumentation theory does not offer a plausible alternative definition of good argument.
The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) is a commonly used tool for measu... more The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) is a commonly used tool for measuring critical thinking dispositions. However, research on the efficacy of the CCTDI in predicting good thinking about students' own deeply held beliefs is scant. In this paper we report on preliminary results from our ongoing study designed to gauge the usefulness of the CCTDI in this context.
Whataboutisms have received scant attention in argumentation theory, yet they are common persuasi... more Whataboutisms have received scant attention in argumentation theory, yet they are common persuasive moves in debates about social and political issues and can occur in the form of arguments. This paper analyses these arguments, showing that while whataboutisms tend to make for bad arguments, there can be instances of good argument employing a whataboutist move. The final section of the paper considers arguments employing whataboutsims as instances of argumentative harm.
International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 2009
Abstract At several points in his later writings Wittgenstein discusses imaginary forms of life a... more Abstract At several points in his later writings Wittgenstein discusses imaginary forms of life and ways of thinking that appear queer or alien from our point of view; concepts so different from ours that those who think from within them seem to be alternatives to us. In this paper I argue that reflection on the notions of difference and possibility in play here shows that imaginary cases of alien conceptual schemes or forms of life such as those considered by Wittgenstein are not all cases of concepts that are entirely unintelligible for us; rather they may represent possible, albeit distant, ways of thinking for us. Such cases serve to aid imaginative reflection on our own case(s). By making us appreciate the possibility of the strange, they help us better to appreciate the arbitrariness of the familiar. I end the paper by considering what the implications of this reading of Wittgenstein’s position might be for Donald Davidson’s rejection of conceptual relativism.
In this paper, I consider whether there are limits to virtuous argumentation in certain situation... more 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 who make bigoted claims, and 3) cases in which marginalised people are expected to exercise virtues of argument from a position of limited agency. For each type of case, I look at where limits to arguing responsibly might be drawn. I argue that there are situations in which we might withdraw from engagement for practical reasons and others in which withdrawing or refraining from engagement is a responsible way to deal with a particular position. Finally, I argue that in the third type of case, expecting the marginalised to argue as though on even terms with the positions of the dominant risks perpetrating argumentative harm.
In this paper we consider the prospects for an account of good argument that takes the character ... more In this paper we consider the prospects for an account of good argument that takes the character of the arguer into consideration. We conclude that although there is much to be gained by identifying the virtues of the good arguer and by considering the ways in which these virtues can be developed in ourselves and in others, virtue argumentation theory does not offer a plausible alternative definition of good argument.
The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) is a commonly used tool for measu... more The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) is a commonly used tool for measuring critical thinking dispositions. However, research on the efficacy of the CCTDI in predicting good thinking about students' own deeply held beliefs is scant. In this paper we report on preliminary results from our ongoing study designed to gauge the usefulness of the CCTDI in this context.
Uploads
Papers by Tracy Bowell