Abstracts
Abstract
In “Epistemic Coverage and Argument Closure,” Catherine Hundleby brings together Sanford Goldberg’s work in social epistemology with Douglas Walton’s work in argumentation theory, on the topic of arguments from ignorance and truth-to-testimony conditionals. This paper explores the uses and limits of such arguments and conditionals, especially in connection with the problem of epistemic bubbles.
Keywords:
- argument from ignorance,
- epistemic coverage,
- epistemic bubble,
- dogmatism paradox
Résumé
Dans « Epistemic Cover-age and Argument Closure », Catherine Hundleby met en relation les travaux de Sanford Goldberg en épistémologie sociale et ceux de Douglas Walton en théorie de l’argumentation, portant sur les arguments fondés sur l’ignorance et sur les énoncés conditionnels du type « Si c’était vrai, je l’aurais déjà su ». Cet article explore les usages et les limites de ces arguments et de ces énoncés conditionnels, notamment en lien avec le problème des bulles épistémiques, qui excluent des informations pertinentes.
Appendices
Bibliography
- Goldberg, S. (2010). Relying on others: An essay in epistemology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Goldberg, S. (2011). If that were true I would have heard about it by now. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Epistemology (pp. 92–108). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Goldberg, S. (2018). To the best of our knowledge: Social expectations and epistemic normativity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Groarke, L., & Tindale, C. (2013). Good reasoning matters! (5th edition.). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hundleby, C. (2021). Epistemic coverage and argumentative closure. Topoi, 40, 1051–1062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-020-09693-310.1007/s11245-020-09693-3 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Koons, R. (2022). Defeasible reasoning. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2022 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/reasoning-defeasible/Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Nguyen, C. T. (2020). Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme, 17 (2), 141–161.10.1017/epi.2018.32 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Pollock, John (1986). Contemporary theories of knowledge. Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Sheeks, M. (2023). The myth of the good epistemic bubble. Episteme, 20, 685–700.10.1017/epi.2022.52 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Sunstein, C. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400884711 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Tindale, C. (2007). Fallacies and argument appraisal. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511806544 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Walton, D. (1996). Arguments from ignorance. Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Walton, D. (1998). The new dialectic: conversational contexts of argument. University of Toronto Press.10.3138/9781442681859 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Walton, D. (2001). Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic, 21 (2), 141–169.10.22329/il.v21i2.2241 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Walton, D. (2011). Reasoning about knowledge using defeasible logic. Argument and Computation 2 (2-3), 131-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2011.63764110.1080/19462166.2011.637641 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802034 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar

