Switch to: References

Citations of:

Silencing and assertion

In Sanford Goldberg (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Assertion. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. pp. 749-769 (2019)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Lying, Speech Acts, and Commitment.Neri Marsili - forthcoming - Synthese:1-25.
    Not every speech act can be a lie. A good definition of lying should be able to draw the right distinctions between speech acts (like promises, assertions, and oaths) that can be lies and speech acts (like commands, suggestions, or assumptions) that under no circumstances are lies. This paper shows that no extant account of lying is able to draw the required distinctions. It argues that a definition of lying based on the notion of ‘assertoric commitment’ can succeed where other (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Verità e Post-Verità: dall'Indagine alla Post-Indagine.Filippo Ferrari & Sebastiano Moruzzi - 2020 - Bologna: 1088 Press & Bononia University Press.
    In this book, we interpret post-truth as a multifaceted phenomenon which involves fake news, emotion-driven rhetoric (vs fact-driven discussion), credulism in the social-media, conspiracy theories and scientific denialism. We develop three models intended to represent the multifaceted nature of post-truth in terms of deviated forms of enquiry – which we label “post-enquiries”. The first form of post-enquiry posits the existence of alternative facts; the second prioritizes emotions over facts; the third limits the scope of the norms of enquiry. We elaborate (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Your Word Against Mine: The Power of Uptake.Lucy McDonald - forthcoming - Synthese:1-22.
    Uptake is typically understood as the hearer’s recognition of the speaker’s communicative intention. According to one theory of uptake, the hearer’s role is merely as a ratifier. The speaker, by expressing a particular communicative intention, predetermines what kind of illocutionary act she might perform. Her hearer can then render this act a success or a failure. Thus the hearer has no power over which act could be performed, but she does have some power over whether it is performed. Call this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Deliberation and Group Disagreement.Fernando Broncano-Berrocal & J. Adam Carter - 2020 - In Fernando Broncano-Berrocal & J. Adam Carter (eds.), The Epistemology of Group Disagreement. London: Routledge. pp. 9-45.
    Suppose an inquiring group wants to let a certain view stand as the group's view. But there’s a problem: the individuals in that group do not initially all agree with one another about what the correct view is. What should the group do, given that it wants to settle on a single answer, in the face of this kind of intragroup disagreement? Should the group members deliberate and exchange evidence and then take a vote? Or, given the well-known ways that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Privacy in Public: A Democratic Defense.Titus Stahl - 2020 - Moral Philosophy and Politics 7 (1):73-96.
    Traditional arguments for privacy in public suggest that intentionally public activities, such as political speech, do not deserve privacy protection. In this article, I develop a new argument for the view that surveillance of intentionally public activities should be limited to protect the specific good that this context provides, namely democratic legitimacy. Combining insights from Helen Nissenbaum’s contextualism and Jürgen Habermas’s theory of the public sphere, I argue that strategic surveillance of the public sphere can undermine the capacity of citizens (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark