Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- PART 1 ACCEPTABILITY: DIALECTICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL COSIDERATIONS
- 1 Why Do We Need a Theory of Acceptability?
- 2 Acceptability and Presumption
- 3 Factors Determining Presumption: Basic Considerations
- 4 Epistemological Considerations: Acceptability, Deontology, Internalism, Justification
- PART 2 STATEMENTS, BELIEF-GENERATING MECHANISMS, AND PRESUMPTIVE RELIABILITY
- PART 3 PRACTICE AND PERSPECTIVE
- Notes
- References
- Index
1 - Why Do We Need a Theory of Acceptability?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- PART 1 ACCEPTABILITY: DIALECTICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL COSIDERATIONS
- 1 Why Do We Need a Theory of Acceptability?
- 2 Acceptability and Presumption
- 3 Factors Determining Presumption: Basic Considerations
- 4 Epistemological Considerations: Acceptability, Deontology, Internalism, Justification
- PART 2 STATEMENTS, BELIEF-GENERATING MECHANISMS, AND PRESUMPTIVE RELIABILITY
- PART 3 PRACTICE AND PERSPECTIVE
- Notes
- References
- Index
Summary
When, if ever, is a premise – indeed a statement in general – acceptable? That is the central question of this book. Therefore, this is a normative investigation. This point needs to be underlined, as the very word “acceptability” contains an ambiguity. A statement's acceptability may mean its prospects for being accepted by a certain audience. This is not our meaning. We are not interested in the marketability of a statement but in whether the statement should be accepted. Is acceptance rationally justified for a particular audience? However, there are two preliminary issues we must address. Why is this book needed at all? Is there no simple, straightforward, and adequate answer available? The simplest way to address this question is to look at certain simple and straightforward answers and see that they either do not answer the question correctly or are fraught with problems. But first we should clarify what it means to accept a statement, and so by implication what “acceptability” means.
ACCEPTANCE – A BASIC DEFINITION
In (1992), L. Jonathan Cohen contrasts these two concepts: To believe a proposition that p is to be disposed to feel that p is true and that not-p is false, whether or not one is prepared to take that p as a premise for further belief or action. To accept that p is to take that p as a premise “for deciding what to do or think in a particular context, whether or not one feels it to be true that p” (1992, p. 4).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Acceptable PremisesAn Epistemic Approach to an Informal Logic Problem, pp. 3 - 20Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2004