@inbook{0e419347c40f42e78901dd76d94cb7ea,
title = "The Exclusion Argument",
abstract = "In Controversies and the Metaphysics of Mind, I pointed out the epistemic merits of philosophical (metaphysical) controversies by examining a type of argument that is often used in philosophical controversies – the Relevant Controversial Alternative argument. Arguments belonging to this type aim to point out the relevance of the arguer{\textquoteright}s position to the content of the opponent{\textquoteright}s radically opposed position. An exchange that consists of Relevant Controversial Alternative arguments and responses to them is a cooperative intellectual project binding the representatives of competing positions together. Exclusion arguments are motivated by the opposite goal. These are arguments that aim to undermine the relevance of a radically opposed position to the content and goals of the position that one supports, that is, they aim to isolate one{\textquoteright}s position from the opposed one. In this chapter I examine the nature of Exclusion arguments and, in particular, the rational (epistemic) motivation to use them.",
keywords = "Arguments, Controversies, Dascal, Kant, Philosophical controversies, Rationality, The pragmatics of controversies",
author = "Yaron Senderowicz",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014.",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1007/978-94-007-7131-4_2",
language = "אנגלית",
isbn = "9789400771307",
series = "Logic, Argumentation and Reasoning",
publisher = "Springer",
pages = "19--28",
editor = "Dana Riesenfeld and Giovanni Scarafile",
booktitle = "Perspectives on Theory of Controversies and the Ethics of Communication",
}