Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 10:2 (2021) ► pp.226–244

Be reasonable!

How to be an optimist in the ‘Age of Unreason’

| University of Groningen
| University of Groningen

Are we living in an age of unreason? And what to do about it? Can we combat unreason? We discuss situations in which one may presume to be confronted with unreasonable behavior by an interlocutor: fallacies, changing rules of the game, shifting to some other type of dialogue, and abandonment of reasonable dialogue. We recommend ways that could be helpful to obtain a return to reason. These possibilities lead us to a moderately optimistic conclusion.

Keywords: abandonment of reasonable dialogue, bullshit, dialogue shift, fake news, fallacy, game-change, optimism
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Do we live in an age of unreason?
  • 3.Can we combat unreason?
  • 4.Ways to react to cases of presumed unreason
    • 4.1Dealing with isolated fallacies
    • 4.2Dealing with alternative views on rules
    • 4.3Dealing with shifts to other dialogue types
    • 4.4Dealing with abandonment of reasonable dialogue
    • 4.5Dealing with fake news and bullshit
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19021.kra
References
Aikin, Scott F.
(2013) Deep disagreement, the dark enlightenment, and the rhetoric of the red pill. Journal of Applied Logic 36 (3), 420–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikin, Scott F., & Robert B. Talisse
(2019) Why We Argue (and How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement in an Age of Unreason. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Amanda
(2018) Gaslighting America: Why We Love It When Trump Lies to Us. New York, N.Y.: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
Cillizza, Chris
(2017) Donald Trump doesn’t think much of climate change, in 20 quotes. CNN, August 8 2017 Retrieved March 11 2019 from [URL]
Cohen, Daniel
(1995) Argument is war…and war is hell: Philosophy, education, and metaphors for argumentation. Informal Logic 171, 177–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) The virtuous troll: Argumentative virtues in the age of (technologically enhanced) argumentative pluralism. Philosophy & Technology, 301, 179–189,. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Descartes, René
(1637) Discours de la méthode: Pour bien conduire sa raison, & chercher la verité dans les sciences […] [Discourse on the Method: For Rightly Conducting One’s Reason and Seeking the Truth in the Sciences […]]. Leiden: Ian Maire.Google Scholar
Fearnside, W. Ward, & William B. Holther
(1959) Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry G.
(2005) On Bullshit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Reprint of: On Bullshit, Raritan Quarterly Review, 6 (2): 81–100 1986.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lisa
(2018) ‘I don’t know that it’s man-made,’ Trump Says of climate change. It is. The New York Times, October 15 2018 Retrieved from [URL], March 11 2019
Govier, Trudy
(1999) The Philosophy of Argument. Edited by John Hoagland with a preface by J. Anthony Blair. Newport News VA: Vale press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Christal
(2018) Trump is skeptical of climate change report because of his ‘high levels of intelligence’, USA TODAY, November 27 2018 Retrieved on March 11 2019 from [URL]
Habgood-Coote, Joshua
(2019) Stop talking about fake news! Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 62 (9–10), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L.
(1970) Fallacies. London: Methuen. Reprinted with a preface by John Plecnik and John Hoaglund: Newport News, VA: Vale Press 1986.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott
(2009) Nonfallacious rhetorical design in argumentation. In Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation: Twenty essays on theoretical issues (pp. 55–78). ( Argumentation library 14). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Ralph H., & J. Anthony Blair
(1983) Logical Self-Defense. 2nd ed. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. First ed. 1977.Google Scholar
Krabbe, Erik C. W. Metadialogues
(2003) In: Frans. H. van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, Charles A. Willard and A. Fransisca Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone Who has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation (pp. 83–90), Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, Lars J. & Bernd Kaussler
(2018) The bullshit doctrine: Fabrications, Lies, and Nonsense in the Age of Trump. Informal Logic 381 (2018), 13–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George P., & Gil Duran
(2018) Trump has turned words into weapons: And he’s winning the linguistic war. The Guardian, 13 June 2018.Google Scholar
Lanius, David
(2017) Wie argumentieren Rechtspopulisten? Eine Argumentationsanalyse des AfD-Wahlprogramms [How do rightwing populists argue? An argumentation analysis of the AfD election platform]. Karlsruhe: Institut für Technikzukünfte (Diskussionspapiere 41).Google Scholar
Lozada, Carlos
(2018) Can truth survive this president? An honest investigation. The Washington Post, July 13 2018.Google Scholar
Smith, Justin
(2019) Irrationality: A History of the Dark Side of Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason
(2015) How Propaganda Works. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
The White House
(2017) Statement by president Trump on the Paris Climate Accord. Retrieved, June 13 2019, from: [URL]
Tumulty, Karen
(2019) Trump is trolling us again. Stop falling for it. The Washington Post, May 6, 2019. Retrieved on March 25 from: [URL]
van Eemeren, Frans H., & Rob Grootendorst
(2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Laar, Jan Albert, & Erik C. W. Krabbe
(2016) Fair and Unfair Strategies in Public Controversies. Journal of Argumentation in Context 5 (3), 315–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas N., & Erik C. W. Krabbe
(1995) Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar