Robert B. Talisse is Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University. He is the author of Democracy and Moral Conflict (Cambridge 2009). He is co-author, with Scott F. Aikin, of Reasonable Atheism (Prometheus 2011). Email: robert.talisse [at] vanderbilt.edu. Scott F. Aikin is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Vanderbilt University. He is the author of Epistemology and the Regress Problem (Routledge 2010). He is also co-author, with Robert B. Talisse, of Reasonable Atheism (Prometheus 2011). Email: scott.f.aikin [at] vanderbilt.edu
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse Consider the following exchanges. Hypocrite: A father advises his daughter not to smoke, since it is addictive and causes lung disease. However, the father himself is a heavy smoker. And the daughter cannot help but notice this and point out her father's hypocrisy. On this basis, she…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse Textbook discussions of logic often proceed as if reasoning were a relatively simple, albeit challenging, process. One simply begins from one's evidence, articulates one's premises, and then, by means of the application of rules of induction or deduction, one draws one's conclusion. On this common picture, the…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse In the United States, the political season is almost upon us. Campaigns are gearing up, contrasts are being drawn, and debates are beginning to emerge. This is an important time for those who are interested in the norms of argument and public deliberation. Fallacy-detection is a favorite…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse We've noticed a strange phenomenon in contemporary political discourse. As our politics at almost every level become increasingly tribal — devoted to circle-the-wagons campaigns and on-point messaging of carefully curated party-lines — the dominant images of our politics are all the more dressed in the rhetoric of…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse In his Contra Academicos, Augustine discusses a fragment of Cicero's Academica in which Cicero advances a unique argument for skepticism. Cicero's argument is unique in that it derives, ironically, from a positive epistemic assessment of human judgments. Skeptical arguments usually proceed from negative assessments of human cognition…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse The title of this post might look peculiar. People frequently think of politics as a winner-take-all clash between conflicting interests, something akin to a football game, where the sole aim is to win, and the only rule is to not get caught cheating. Indeed, in a democracy,…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse Fallibilism is a philosophical halo term, a preferred rhetorical mantle that one attaches to the views one favors. Accordingly, fallibilists identify their view with the things that cognitively modest people tend to say about themselves: I believe this, but I may be wrong; We know things but…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse The case for God's existence is unsuccessful. Theistic arguments either beg the question, or involve deductive fallacies, or don't really prove what they promised to. Furthermore, the atheistic arguments all seem decisive – there's no morally acceptable solution to the problem of evil, and there is no…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse In the course of discussing the central themes of our recent book, Why We Argue (And How We Should), with audiences of various kinds, one kind of critical response has emerged as among the most popular. It deserves a more detailed reply than we are able to…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse Ernie: “Is it possible you'll be around after lunch for a quick chat?” Bert: “Yes.” Ernie: “Ok. I'll see you then.” Bert: “Wait, wait! I didn't say I'd be around after lunch!” Ernie: “What the heck?!?!” This is a case of a conversational misfire, and although errors…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse Consider the nihilist who provides us with an argument with the conclusion that nothing exists, or that there are no norms for reason. Take the relativist who contends that all facts are relative to some perspective. Note the skeptic who consistently criticizes not only our claims to…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse The Ontological Argument is an infamously devilish a priori argument for God's existence. It runs, roughly, as follows. God is by definition is the greatest possible thing. If God is the greatest possible thing, then He cannot fail to manifest any perfection — otherwise, there would be…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse Plato is among the most famous critics of democracy. His criticism is relatively simple, but potentially devastating. It runs as follows. Politics aims at achieving justice, and so political policy must reflect the demands of justice. Only those who know what justice is and have the self-control…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse Why We Argue (And How We Should) is centrally concerned to elucidate the concept of a dialectical fallacy. This concept deserves comment. “Fallacy” is the name given to especially common and attractive failures of reasoning. Works in logic and critical thinking typically distinguish between formal and informal…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse In last month's post, we contrasted a formal conception of argument with a dialectical one. We claimed that a dialectical model must be developed in order to capture the breadth not only of the good arguments we give, but also the bad. To review, the formal conception…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse Logic, as a field of study, is primarily focused on arguments. Logicians ask questions like: What counts as an argument? What counts as a good argument? How does argument go wrong? The overriding objective is to articulate the ways in which good reasoning differs from bad reasoning,…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse Not long ago, a few philosophers went out for lunch at a small café. As they ate, they argued about the morality of infanticide. Eventually another patron of the café approached the table of philosophers and asked indignantly, “What’s wrong with you people?” Philosophers have always cultivated…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge. Its main questions are: What do we know?; How do we know it?; and What distinguishes knowledge from lucky guesses, sheer dogmatism, and simple ignorance? The application of this discipline seems pretty obvious in the sense that our answers to…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse Like most things in life, the Internet is a mixed bag. Sometimes, online discussion is very, very good. And sometimes, online argument can go very badly, and there is a name for those who embrace a deleterious argumentative practice that is made possible by the Internet. We…
by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse We’re currently finishing work on the manuscript for our forthcoming book, Why We Argue (And How We Should), so we’ve been thinking a lot recently about argumentation. We’ve been especially concerned with how arguments can go wrong. When evaluating an argument, one of the central questions to…