When Philosophical Argumentation Impedes Social and Political Progress

Author(s)Phyllis Rooney
JournalJournal of Social Philosophy
Thematic Cluster/Special IssueGender, Implicit Bias, and Philosophical Methodology
AbstractThis article examines how certain practices of adversarial argumentation in philosophy can impede social and political progress, particularly regarding equity concerns. While acknowledging that some level of adversariality is inherent to philosophical debate, Rooney argues that default skeptical stances adopted by respondents can facilitate both explicit and implicit bias, especially when minority or marginalized philosophers address issues of significance to their subgroups. Drawing on recent work on epistemic injustice by Miranda Fricker and others, Rooney demonstrates how standard argumentative practices can result in credibility deficits for minority speakers, effectively silencing or misrepresenting their contributions. Through analysis of a blog discussion about gender equity in philosophy, she illustrates how adversarial argumentation operates at both ground and meta levels to deter epistemically responsible debate. The article contends that philosophical argumentation practices requiring greater epistemic humility and trustworthiness are necessary to advance truth, understanding, and genuine diversity in the discipline.
This content was generated by artificial intelligence using the text of the original work.
Keywordsadversarial argumentation, epistemic injustice, implicit bias, gender equity, philosophy profession, credibility deficit, skeptical stance, testimonial injustice, philosophical methodology, diversity in philosophy
This content was generated by artificial intelligence using the text of the original work.
Date Published 2012
Volume43
Issue3
Pages317-333
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9833.2012.01568.x
URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2012.01568.x
Google Scholar Linkhttps://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=8829442533972399323&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
Open Access?No

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.