Periodic Reporting for period 4 - SEA (The Social Epistemology of Argumentation)
Berichtszeitraum: 2023-01-01 bis 2024-06-30
Argumentation - the practice of giving and asking for reasons to support claims - is a key component of scientific inquiry, legal procedures, and political life. But in many instances, argumentation does not achieve its presumed goal of fostering consensus and the circulation of reliable information. Recent troubling events in world politics demonstrate that a better grasp of what argumentation can and cannot do for us is urgently needed.
The key question of this project is: ‘what does it take for a process of argumentation to be fruitful, and in particular to lead to epistemic improvement?’ Prior theories fail because they are based on overly idealized assumptions. This project develops a more realistic approach: argumentation is viewed as a practice interwoven with power relations, occurring in situations of epistemic and social diversity, and involving agents who are not ‘purely rational’. We will formulate the first comprehensive account of the social epistemology of argumentation, i.e. of the role of argumentation in processes of circulation and production of knowledge, evidence, and justification. To this end, we will bring together two research traditions that so far remain largely disconnected: social epistemology and argumentation theory.
Our innovative hypothesis is that argumentation is a form of social exchange that can be successful to various degrees. Epistemic resources such as knowledge, evidence, justification, critical objections are involved in argumentative exchanges. Insights from social exchange theory will inform the investigation, a suitable framework for our purposes because it emphasizes the interplay between self-interest and interdependence. The result will be a realistic theory of the processes through which resources, including epistemic resources, are shared and produced through argumentation. It will offer concrete recommendations on how to foster fruitful argumentation, with wide-ranging applications wherever argumentation is crucial: scientific, legal, and political/public discourse.
The key question of this project is: ‘what does it take for a process of argumentation to be fruitful, and in particular to lead to epistemic improvement?’ Prior theories fail because they are based on overly idealized assumptions. This project develops a more realistic approach: argumentation is viewed as a practice interwoven with power relations, occurring in situations of epistemic and social diversity, and involving agents who are not ‘purely rational’. We will formulate the first comprehensive account of the social epistemology of argumentation, i.e. of the role of argumentation in processes of circulation and production of knowledge, evidence, and justification. To this end, we will bring together two research traditions that so far remain largely disconnected: social epistemology and argumentation theory.
Our innovative hypothesis is that argumentation is a form of social exchange that can be successful to various degrees. Epistemic resources such as knowledge, evidence, justification, critical objections are involved in argumentative exchanges. Insights from social exchange theory will inform the investigation, a suitable framework for our purposes because it emphasizes the interplay between self-interest and interdependence. The result will be a realistic theory of the processes through which resources, including epistemic resources, are shared and produced through argumentation. It will offer concrete recommendations on how to foster fruitful argumentation, with wide-ranging applications wherever argumentation is crucial: scientific, legal, and political/public discourse.
The SEA team started with a systematic review of the relevant literature on argumentation and social epistemology (year 1). We then spent year 2 familiarizing ourselves with social exchange theory. This has led to the main research breakthrough of the project so far: the formulation of a three-tiered model of epistemic exchange inspired by social exchange theory. On this model, there are three successive stages in processes of knowledge and information exchange: 1) the source catches the receiver’s attention; 2) the receiver trusts the source sufficiently; 3) the receiver engages with the shared content. Moreover, these agents are viewed as located in complex networks of potential interactions.
This model allows for a much more detailed analysis of the different aspects involved in argumentation, in particular choices concerning where to allocate precious cognitive resources such as time and attention, and the role of trust in argumentation. In this way we are in a much better position to identify obstacles to fruitful argumentation, and when argumentation is not likely to lead to a genuine exchange of knowledge and information (for example, if the parties involved do not trust each other above a minimum threshold). In the remaining time of the project, the model was then applied to a number of case studies, such as scientific practice, the public engagement of scientists with non-scientists, and political deliberation and argumentation. Moreover, project members have worked on a number of other issues such as whether (and when) laypeople should trust experts on decisions with practical implications, the different ways in which argumentation can in fact contribute to inequalities (perhaps paradoxically), and the implications of adversariality and cooperation for argumentation.
In years 3 and 4 (September 2020-August 2022), the project explored implications for philosophy of science more closely. We have focuses on argumentation in science: studying science as a disciplined collective epistemic activity to test, inform, and generate philosophical insights about argumentation. In particular, we focus on the epistemic diversity in science by analyzing prominent interdisciplinary, trans-disciplinary, and policy-deliberation contexts where scientists engage in argumentative practices. We also focus on science’s role in democratic contexts and the interface between science and the political sphere.
In years 5 and 6 (September 2022-June 2024), we focused primarily on political argumentation, focusing on issues such as deliberative democracy and polarization. We have investigated the limitations of influential models of political argumentation such as the ones proposed by Habermas and Rawls, according to which argumentation and deliberation can serve as a kind of 'power equalizer' in democratic societies. We have shown instead that argumentative processes can reproduce and reinforce existing power dynamics, and that other forms of discursive interaction in political arenas (protest, narratives etc.) are also essential to a healthy democratic society. More generally, we have investigated how reason and power interact in argumentative processes.
Main results:
C. Dutilh Novaes 2020, ‘The Role of Trust in Argumentation’. Informal Logic 40 (2).
C. Dutilh Novaes 2020, The Dialogical Roots of Deduction. Cambridge University Press.
“What are we doing when we argue?” Interview with PI Catarina Dutilh Novaes on national Australian radio to discuss some of the main findings of the project in an accessible manner (August 2020).
• https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/what-are-we-doing-when-we-argue/12511968(öffnet in neuem Fenster)
C. Dutilh Novaes 2021, Argument and Argumentation’. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
C. Dutilh Novaes and S. Ivani 2022, 'The inflated promise of science education' Boston Review
C. Dutilh Novaes, Catarina 2023, VII—Can Arguments Change Minds? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 123 (2):173-198.
M. Talbi and C. Dutilh Novaes 2024, De paradoxen van (in)tolerantie in epistemische netwerken. Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte, Volume 116, Issue 1, mrt. 2024, p. 55 - 73
S. Anttila and C. Dutilh Novaes 2024. Critical Social Epistemology and the Liberating Power of Dialogue. In W. J. Silva-Filho (Ed.), The Epistemology of Conversation: First Essays (pp. 239-262). Springer Nature.
Special issue of the journal Topoi edited by members of the project, to appear in 2025.
* https://link.springer.com/collections/ieigacecbd(öffnet in neuem Fenster)
C. Dutilh Novaes forthcoming, Reason and Power in Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
This model allows for a much more detailed analysis of the different aspects involved in argumentation, in particular choices concerning where to allocate precious cognitive resources such as time and attention, and the role of trust in argumentation. In this way we are in a much better position to identify obstacles to fruitful argumentation, and when argumentation is not likely to lead to a genuine exchange of knowledge and information (for example, if the parties involved do not trust each other above a minimum threshold). In the remaining time of the project, the model was then applied to a number of case studies, such as scientific practice, the public engagement of scientists with non-scientists, and political deliberation and argumentation. Moreover, project members have worked on a number of other issues such as whether (and when) laypeople should trust experts on decisions with practical implications, the different ways in which argumentation can in fact contribute to inequalities (perhaps paradoxically), and the implications of adversariality and cooperation for argumentation.
In years 3 and 4 (September 2020-August 2022), the project explored implications for philosophy of science more closely. We have focuses on argumentation in science: studying science as a disciplined collective epistemic activity to test, inform, and generate philosophical insights about argumentation. In particular, we focus on the epistemic diversity in science by analyzing prominent interdisciplinary, trans-disciplinary, and policy-deliberation contexts where scientists engage in argumentative practices. We also focus on science’s role in democratic contexts and the interface between science and the political sphere.
In years 5 and 6 (September 2022-June 2024), we focused primarily on political argumentation, focusing on issues such as deliberative democracy and polarization. We have investigated the limitations of influential models of political argumentation such as the ones proposed by Habermas and Rawls, according to which argumentation and deliberation can serve as a kind of 'power equalizer' in democratic societies. We have shown instead that argumentative processes can reproduce and reinforce existing power dynamics, and that other forms of discursive interaction in political arenas (protest, narratives etc.) are also essential to a healthy democratic society. More generally, we have investigated how reason and power interact in argumentative processes.
Main results:
C. Dutilh Novaes 2020, ‘The Role of Trust in Argumentation’. Informal Logic 40 (2).
C. Dutilh Novaes 2020, The Dialogical Roots of Deduction. Cambridge University Press.
“What are we doing when we argue?” Interview with PI Catarina Dutilh Novaes on national Australian radio to discuss some of the main findings of the project in an accessible manner (August 2020).
• https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/what-are-we-doing-when-we-argue/12511968(öffnet in neuem Fenster)
C. Dutilh Novaes 2021, Argument and Argumentation’. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
C. Dutilh Novaes and S. Ivani 2022, 'The inflated promise of science education' Boston Review
C. Dutilh Novaes, Catarina 2023, VII—Can Arguments Change Minds? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 123 (2):173-198.
M. Talbi and C. Dutilh Novaes 2024, De paradoxen van (in)tolerantie in epistemische netwerken. Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte, Volume 116, Issue 1, mrt. 2024, p. 55 - 73
S. Anttila and C. Dutilh Novaes 2024. Critical Social Epistemology and the Liberating Power of Dialogue. In W. J. Silva-Filho (Ed.), The Epistemology of Conversation: First Essays (pp. 239-262). Springer Nature.
Special issue of the journal Topoi edited by members of the project, to appear in 2025.
* https://link.springer.com/collections/ieigacecbd(öffnet in neuem Fenster)
C. Dutilh Novaes forthcoming, Reason and Power in Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
It is fair to say that the results of the project had a significant impact on several disciplines. For argumentation theory, our research constituted the first systematic investigation of how reason and power interact in argumentative processes. For social epistemology, we offered the first comprehensive account of the social epistemology of argumentation, as a quintessential process through which knowledge is shared and produced. For political philosophy, we have investigated the limitations of a 'liberal' (broadly speaking) model of democratic deliberation, emphasizing not only the benefits but also the costs and risks of extensive argumentation and deliberation in political contexts.