Truth and Reconciliation: Comments on Coalescence

Abstract

In Coalescent Argumentation, Michael Gilbert criticizes the "Critical-Logical Model" which he claims focuses on truth and treats arguments a-contextually; he proposes an alternative theory of coalescent argumentation which focuses on cont ent and consensus. I shall examine the dispute between the C-L and the coalescent models using the coalescent approach, thereby attempting to find which points of contention are real disagreements and which are only peripheral or apparent. Finally, I sh all examine the extent to which this examination, undertaken using the coalescent model, differs from what would have been done using a C-L model.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 104,026

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-04-02

Downloads
26 (#927,779)

6 months
9 (#424,353)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Considered Judgment.Catherine Z. Elgin - 1999 - Princeton University Press.
Logical Self-Defense.Ralph Henry Johnson & J. Anthony Blair - 1977 - Toronto, Canada: Mcgraw-Hill.
Considered Judgment.Catherine Z. Elgin - 1996 - Princeton: New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Reasoning.Michael Scriven - 1976 - New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Coalescent argumentation.Michael A. Gilbert - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (5):837-852.

View all 15 references / Add more references