Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T20:18:26.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Argumentation and Distortion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Jonathan Adler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Why is there so much misrepresentation of arguments in public forums? Standard explanations, such as self-interested biases, are insufficient. An additional part of the explanation is our commitment to, or belief in, norms that disallow responses that amount to no firm judgment, as contrasted with definite agreement or disagreement. In disallowing no-firm-judgment responses, these norms deny not only degrees of support or dissent and a variety of ways of suspending judgment, but also indifference. Since these norms leave us with only constricted options that are very intellectually demanding, in accepting these norms we impose on ourselves a pressure to justify our judgment that lends itself to relief through misrepresentation or distortion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , October 2007 , pp. 382 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adler, J. E. 2000. “Belief and Negation.” Informal Logic 20: 207–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, J. E. 2002. Belief's Own Ethics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, J. E. 2004. “Shedding Dialectical Tiers: A Social-Epistemic View.” Argumentation 18: 279–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J. and Fazio, R. H.. 1984. “A New Look at Dissonance Theory.” In Cooper, J. and Fazio, R. H., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 17, pp. 229–66. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dhar, R. and Simonson, I.. 2003. “The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice.” Journal of Marketing Research 40(2): 146–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evnine, S. 2001. “The Universality of Logic.” Mind 110: 335–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. 1964. Conflict, Decision, and Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gazzaninga, M. 1998. The Mind's Past. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G. 1986. Change of View. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
James, W. 1951. “The Will to Believe.” In Castelli, A., ed. Essays in Pragmatism, pp. 88–109. New York: Hafner Publishing.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1993. The Advancement of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. 1991. The Skills of Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J. 1690/1975. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Nidditch, P. H. (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E. and Wilson, T. D.. 1977. “Telling More than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes.” Psychological Review 84: 231–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 1999. “Two Concepts of Rules.” In Freeman, S. (ed.), John Rawls: Collected Papers, pp. 20–46. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shermer, M. 2005. “Mr. Skeptic Goes to Esalen.” Scientific American 293(6): 38.Google ScholarPubMed
Sober, E. 2001. Core Questions in Philosophy, 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. 2003. Why Societies Need Dissent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Surowiecki, J. 2007. “The Science of Success.” The New Yorker 83(19): 40.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. 2002. Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Woods, J. and Walton, D.. 1978. “The Fallacy of ‘Ad Ignorantiam.’” Dialectica 32: 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar