Three Objections to the Epistemic Theory of Argument Rebutted

References

• Aikin, S. F. (2005). Who's afraid of epistemology's regress problem? Philosophical Studies , 126, 191–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aikin, S. F. (2006). Contrastive self-attribution of belief. Social Epistemology , 20, 93–103.
   Google Scholar
• Aikin, S. F. (2008a). Perelmanian universal audience and the epistemic aspirations of Argument. Philosophy and Rhetoric , 41, 238–259.
   Google Scholar
• Aikin, S. F. (2008b). Holding one's own. Argumentation , 22, 571–584.
   Google Scholar
• Aikin, S. F. (In press). “A Self-Refutation Problem for the Rhetorical Theory of Argument.” In Proceedings of the Ontario society for the study of argumentation : 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle (1981). Posterior Analytics ( Hippocrates G. Apostle , trans.) Grinnell, IA: The Peripatetic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Audi, R. (2001a). The architecture of reason. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Audi, R. (2001b). An internalist theory of normative grounds. Philosophical Topics , 29, 19–46.
   Google Scholar
• Biro, J. , & Siegel, H. (1997). Epistemic normativity, argumentation, and fallacies. Argumentation , 11, 277–292.
   Google Scholar
• Biro, J. , & Siegel, H. (1992). Normativity, argumentation, and an epistemic theory of fallacies (pp. 85–103). In F. van Eemeren , R. Grootendorst , J. A. Blair , and C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation Illuminated. SICSTAT: Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Bonjour, L. (1985). The structure of empirical knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bonjour, L. (2002a). Epistemology: Classic problems and contemporary responses. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Bonjour, L. (2002b). Internalism and extemalism. In Paul Moser (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of epistemology (pp. 234–263). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brummett, B. (1990). The reported demise of epistemic rhetoric: A eulogy for epistemic rhetoric. Quarterly Journal of Speech , 76, 69–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke, R. (1984). A rhetorical conception of rationality. Informal Logic , 6, 17–25.
   Google Scholar
• Cherwitz, R. A. (1977). Rhetoric as ‘A way of knowing’. Southern Speech Communications Journal , 42, 207–19.
   Google Scholar
• Cherwitz, R. A. , & Darwin, T. A. (1995). Why the ‘epistemic’ in epistemic rhetoric? The paradox of rhetoric as performance. Text and Performance Quarterly , 15, 189–205.
   Google Scholar
• Cherwitz, R. A. , & Hikins, J. (1986). Communication and knowledge. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chisholm, R. (1966). Theory of knowledge , 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Cling, A. (2008). The epistemic regress problem. Synthese , 140, 401–421.
   Google Scholar
• Crosswhite, J. (1996). The rhetoric of reason. Madison: Wisconsin University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ede, L. (1981). Rhetoric versus philosophy. Central States Speech Journal , 27, 118–135.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, T. (1976). Knowledge, consensus, and rhetorical theory. Quarterly Journal of Speech , 62, 1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fantl, J. (2003). Modest infinitism. Canadian journal of philosophy , 33, 537–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, R. (1993). Reason and argument. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, R. (1994). “Good arguments.” In F. Schmitt (Ed) Socializing epistemology (pp. 159–188). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, R. (2005). Useful advice and good argumentation. Informal Logic , 25, 277–287.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, R. (1999). Epistemology, argumentation, and citizenship, In J. Hintikka , R. Neville , E. Sosa , and A. Olson (Eds.) Proceedings of the 20th world congress of philosophy , Vol. 3—Philosophy of education (pp. 89–106). Charlottesville, VA: The Philosohy Documentation Center.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, R. , & Conee, E. (2001). Internalism defended. American Philosophical Quarterly , 38, 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frankfurt, H. (1988). On bullshit. In The importance of what we care about (pp. 117–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press..
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, J. (2005). Acceptable premises. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, J. (2006). Systematizing Toulmin's warrants. Argumentation , 19, 331–346.
   Google Scholar
• Foss, S. (1989). Rhetorical criticism. 2nd Edition. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fumerton, R. (1995). Metaepistemology and skepticism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, A. I. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, A. I. (2003). An epistemological approach to argumentation. Informal logic , 23, 51–63.
   Google Scholar
• Govier, T. (1999). The philosophy of argument. Vale Press: Newport News.
   Google Scholar
• Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Foris Publications: Dordrecht.
   Google Scholar
• Grootendorst, R. (1991). Everyday argument from a speech act perspective. Communication and Cognition , 24, 111–134.
   Google Scholar
• Grootendorst, R. , & van Eemeren, F. (1995). Perelman and the fallacies. Philosophy and Rhetoric , 28, 122–33.
   Google Scholar
• Haack, S. (1993). Evidence and inquiry. Cambridge: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Harpine, W. (2004). What do you mean rhetoric is epistemic? Philosophy and rhetoric , 37, 335–352.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, M. (2005). Limits of truth: Exploring epistemological approaches to argumentation. Informal Logic , 25, 245–259.
   Google Scholar
• Huss, B. (2005). Useful argumentation: A critique of the epistemological approach. Informal Logic , 25, 261–275.
   Google Scholar
• Johnstone, H. W. (1968). Reply to Mr. Zaner. Philosophy and Rhetoric , 1, 165–7.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, M. (2000). To what must an epistemology be true? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 61, 279–88.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, P. (1999). Human knowledge and the infinite regress of reasons. Philosophical Perspectives , 13(Epistemology), 297–325.
   Google Scholar
• Levi, D.S. (1995). In defense of rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric , 28, 253–275.
   Google Scholar
• McGrew, T. (1995). The foundations of knowledge. Lanham, MD: Littlefield Adams.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, Paul (2009a). Unclear on the concept. Retrieved January 7, 2009 from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/unclear_on_the_concept_1.php
   Google Scholar
• Myers, Paul (2009b). The scientist in the white coat. Retrieved January 7, 2009 from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/the_scientist_in_the_white_coa.php#more
   Google Scholar
• O'Leary, Denyse (2009). The year of Darwin dawns: Loud and exceedingly laughable. Retrieved January 7, 2009 from http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/01/year-of-darwin-dawns-loud-and.html
   Google Scholar
• Perelman, C. , & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958/1969). The new rhetoric. ( J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver , trans). Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Plato . (1961). Gorgias ( W. D. Woodhead , trans.) Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, S. (2002). Sustaining pragmatism's critique of epistemology. In P. C. Bube & J. Geller (Eds.) Conversations with pragmatism: A multi-disciplinary study (pp. 63–71). New York: Rodopi.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, J. (2002). Thinking about knowing. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rowland, R. C. (1995). In defense of rational argument. Philosophy and Rhetoric , 28, 350–364.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, R. (1967). On viewing rhetoric as epistemic. Central States Speech Journal , 18, 9–17.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, R. (1976). On viewing rhetoric as epistemic: Ten years later, Central States Speech Journal, 27, 256–266.
   Google Scholar
• Sellars, W. (1997). Empiricism and philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sillince, J.A.A. , & Minors, R.H. (1991). What makes a strong argument? Communication and cognition , 24, 281–298.
   Google Scholar
• Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tindale, C. (1991). Audiences and acceptable premises: Epistemic and logical conditions. In F. H. van Eemeren , J. A. Blair , C. A. Willard , & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the second annual conference on argumentation (pp. 288–295). Amsterdam: Sic Stat.
   Google Scholar
• Tindale, C. (1999). Acts of arguing. Albany: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tindale, C. (2006). Perelman, informal logic, and the historicity of reason. Informal Logic , 26, 341–357.
   Google Scholar
• Zaner, R. (1968). Philosophy and rhetoric: A critical discussion. Philosophy and Rhetoric , 1, 61–77.
   Google Scholar