Switch to: References

Citations of:

Bothsiderism

Scott F. Aikin & John P. Casey

Argumentation 36 (2):249-268 (2022)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.

What about Whataboutism?Scott Aikin & John Casey - forthcoming - Social Epistemology.details In some recent literature, ‘whataboutism’ is analysed as a sometimes-reasonable argument or claim about inconsistency on an issue of dispute, akin to the ad hominem tu quoque. We argue that this doesn’t capture the peculiarly meta-argumentative failure (or success) of ‘what-about’ appeals. Whataboutist moves are appeals to evidence about whether one has assessed the total evidence or has made the right contrasting consideration and so need not be failures of consistency on the first order. Consequently, whataboutism is best theorized as (...) Download Export citation Bookmark
On Halting Meta-argument with Para-Argument.Scott Aikin & John Casey - 2023 - Argumentation 37 (3):323-340.details Recourse to meta-argument is an important feature of successful argument exchanges; it is where norms are made explicit or clarified, corrections are offered, and inferences are evaluated, among much else. Sadly, it is often an avenue for abuse, as the very virtues of meta-argument are turned against it. The question as to how to manage such abuses is a vexing one. Erik Krabbe proposed that one be levied a fine in cases of inappropriate meta-argumentative bids (2003). In a recent publication (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 2 citations
Free Speech Fallacies as Meta-Argumentative Errors.Scott F. Aikin & John Casey - 2023 - Argumentation 37 (2):295-305.details Free speech fallacies are errors of meta-argument. One commits a free speech fallacy when one argues that since there are apparent restrictions on one’s rights of free expression, procedural rules of critical exchange have been broken, and consequently, one’s preferred view is dialectically better off than it may otherwise seem. Free speech fallacies are meta-argumentative, since they occur at the level of assessing the dialectical situation in terms of norms of argument and in terms of meta-evidential principles of interpreting how (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 2 citations
Pragma-dialectics and the problem of agreement.Scott F. Aikin & John Casey - 2024 - Topoi 43 (4):1259-1268.details Pragma-Dialectics (PD) is an approach to argumentation that can be described as disagreement-centric. On PD, disagreement is the condition which defines argument, it is the practical problem to be solved by it, and disagreement’s management is the ultimate source of argument’s normativity. On PD, arguing in the context of agreement is taken to be “incorrect” and arguments where agreement already reigns are “pointless.” Even the PD account of fallacies is disagreement-centered: a fallacy is something that impedes resolution of a dispute. (...) Download Export citation Bookmark
Fallacies of Meta-argumentation.Scott Aikin & John Casey - 2022 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 55 (4):360-385.details This article argues that the theoretical concept of meta-argumentative fallacy is useful. The authors argue for this along two lines. The first is that with the concept, the authors may clarify the concept of meta-argumentation. That is, by theorizing where meta-argument goes wrong, the authors may capture the norms of this level of argumentation. The second is that the concept of meta-argumentative fallacies provides an explanatory model for a variety of errors in argument otherwise difficult to theorize. The authors take (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 1 citation

1