Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. An Interactionist Approach to Cognitive Debiasing.Steven Bland - 2022 - Episteme 19 (1):66-88.
    This paper examines three programmatic responses to the problem of cognitive bias: virtue epistemology, epistemic paternalism, and epistemic collectivism. Each of these programmes focuses on asinglelevel of epistemic analysis: virtue theorists on individuals, paternalists on environments, and collectivists on groups. I argue that this is a mistake in light of the fact that cognitive biases arise frominteractionsbetween these three domains. Consequently, epistemologists should spend less time defending these programmes, and more timecoordinatingthem. This paper offers empirically based arguments for the interactionist (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Mercier and Sperber’s Argumentative Theory of Reasoning: From Psychology of Reasoning to Argumentation Studies.Cristián Santibáñez Yáñez - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (1):132-159.
    Mercier and Sperber (2011a, 2011b; Mercier, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, and 2011d) have presented a stimulating and provocative new theory of reasoning: the argumentative theory of reasoning. They maintain that argumentation is a meta-representational module. In their evolutionary view of argumentation, the function of this module would be to regulate the flow of information between interlocutors through persuasiveness on the side of the communicator and epistemic vigilance on the side of the audience. The aim of this paper is to discuss the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Replies to Mercier and Oaksford.Howard Darmstadter - 2013 - Thinking and Reasoning 19 (3-4):500-504.
    Replies to Hugo Mercier’s and Mike Oaksford’s comments on my paper “Why Do Humans Reason? A Pragmatic Supplement to an Argumentative Theory,” Thinking & Reasoning (August-November 2013) 472-487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.802256.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • “Strategically wrong”: bias and argumentation.Santibanez Yanez Cristian - unknown
    The brain is composed of mutually inconsistent modules that contain contradictory beliefs. What consequences could this view have on argumentation? In order to sketch an answer, first the family of concepts of what is called generalized deception is discussed; then, this discussion is applied to the problem of the social influence bias to observe both how the mind works strategically wrong and what kind of arguments are used within this mental design in a social argumentative context.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark