Consensus Building and Its Epistemic Conditions.
Most of the epistemological debate on disagreement tries to develop standards that describe which actions or beliefs would be rational under specific circumstances in a controversy. To build things on a firm foundation, much work starts from certain idealizations—for example the assumption that part...
| Publicado en: | Topoi: An International Review of Philosophy Vol. 40; no. 5; pp. 1173 - 1187 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Nov2021
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=153318100&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 153318100 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 01677411 NM2 jtl: Topoi: An International Review of Philosophy issn: 01677411 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Nov2021 vid: 40 iid: 5 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 153318100 10.1007/s11245-019-09640-x ppf: 1173 ppct: 14 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 622KB tig: atl: Consensus Building and Its Epistemic Conditions. aug: au: Hoffmann, Michael H. G. affil: School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, 685 Cherry Street, N.W., DM Smith Building, 30332-0345, Atlanta, GA, USA su: Conflict management sug: subj: Conflict management keyword: Consensus Deep disagreement Epistemology of disagreement Fogelin Framing Intractable conflicts Reflective consensus building Reframing ab: Most of the epistemological debate on disagreement tries to develop standards that describe which actions or beliefs would be rational under specific circumstances in a controversy. To build things on a firm foundation, much work starts from certain idealizations—for example the assumption that parties in a disagreement share all the evidence that is relevant and are equal with regard to their abilities and dispositions. This contribution, by contrast, focuses on a different question and takes a different route. The question is: What should people actually do who find themselves in deep disagreement with others? And instead of building theory on some "firm foundation," the paper starts from a specific goal—building consensus by creating new proposals—and asks, first, which actions are suitable to achieve this goal and, second, what are the epistemic conditions of these actions. With regard to the latter, the paper focuses on what has been called framing and reframing in conflict research, and argues that both metaphors need and deserve a suitable epistemological conceptualization. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Topoi: An International Review of Philosophy is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved. item: Topoi: An International Review of Philosophy holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2021 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|