Rational Consensual Procedure: Argumentation or Weighted Averaging?
The following is a defense of Jurgen Habermas' argumentational consensual procedure against Keith Lehrer and Carl Wagner's weighted averaging consensual procedure (and, I tentatively claim, against any weighted averaging consensual procedure). The argument is twofold: if Lehrer and Wagner...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Synthese (Dordrecht) 1987-06, Vol.71 (3), p.347-354 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 354 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 347 |
| container_title | Synthese (Dordrecht) |
| container_volume | 71 |
| creator | Braaten, Jane |
| description | The following is a defense of Jurgen Habermas' argumentational consensual procedure against Keith Lehrer and Carl Wagner's weighted averaging consensual procedure (and, I tentatively claim, against any weighted averaging consensual procedure). The argument is twofold: if Lehrer and Wagner intend, implicity, to replace what is for Habermas the metatheoretical stage of a discussion with the aggregation of judgments of respect, then their procedure fails to make use of all available information and the participants are not committed to the weighted average position on these grounds; if, on the other hand, they do not intend to replace metatheoretical discussion by aggregation, then the conditions under which the discussion could conceivably have come to a halt are such as to provide no support for the claim that it is rational to aggregate, rather than to consider the discussion unresolved until more information is available. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/BF00485633 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1310055448</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>20116405</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>20116405</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c279t-a7a08510b3cc97c7cb8e3534c9720abfac6672969e280503e1e66f2d51b327e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpF0MFKxDAQBuAgCtbVi3eh4E2oTpImab1ILa4KC4oseCxpOq0tu82atIJvb7Wip5mBj2HmJ-SUwiUFUFe3S4A4EZLzPRJQoXgEqYz3SQDA00glQh2SI-87AEplDAHJX_TQ2l5vwtz2Hns_Tu2zswar0eF1mLlm3GI__KjQuvAV2-ZtwCrMPtDppu2bm2NyUOuNx5PfuiDr5d06f4hWT_ePebaKDFPpEGmlIREUSm5MqowyZYJc8HgaGOiy1kZKxVKZIktAAEeKUtasErTkTCFfkPN57c7Z9xH9UHR2dNPpvqB8-l6IOE4mdTEr46z3Duti59qtdp8FheI7o-I_owmfzbjzg3V_ks3pCP4FVXJhMQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1310055448</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Rational Consensual Procedure: Argumentation or Weighted Averaging?</title><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Braaten, Jane</creator><creatorcontrib>Braaten, Jane</creatorcontrib><description>The following is a defense of Jurgen Habermas' argumentational consensual procedure against Keith Lehrer and Carl Wagner's weighted averaging consensual procedure (and, I tentatively claim, against any weighted averaging consensual procedure). The argument is twofold: if Lehrer and Wagner intend, implicity, to replace what is for Habermas the metatheoretical stage of a discussion with the aggregation of judgments of respect, then their procedure fails to make use of all available information and the participants are not committed to the weighted average position on these grounds; if, on the other hand, they do not intend to replace metatheoretical discussion by aggregation, then the conditions under which the discussion could conceivably have come to a halt are such as to provide no support for the claim that it is rational to aggregate, rather than to consider the discussion unresolved until more information is available.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0039-7857</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-0964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/BF00485633</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company</publisher><subject>Aggregation ; Argumentation ; Debate ; Epistemology ; Intuition ; Judgment ; Rational choice theory ; Rationality ; Reason ; Weighted averages</subject><ispartof>Synthese (Dordrecht), 1987-06, Vol.71 (3), p.347-354</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1987 D. Reidel Publishing Company</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c279t-a7a08510b3cc97c7cb8e3534c9720abfac6672969e280503e1e66f2d51b327e3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20116405$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/20116405$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27869,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Braaten, Jane</creatorcontrib><title>Rational Consensual Procedure: Argumentation or Weighted Averaging?</title><title>Synthese (Dordrecht)</title><description>The following is a defense of Jurgen Habermas' argumentational consensual procedure against Keith Lehrer and Carl Wagner's weighted averaging consensual procedure (and, I tentatively claim, against any weighted averaging consensual procedure). The argument is twofold: if Lehrer and Wagner intend, implicity, to replace what is for Habermas the metatheoretical stage of a discussion with the aggregation of judgments of respect, then their procedure fails to make use of all available information and the participants are not committed to the weighted average position on these grounds; if, on the other hand, they do not intend to replace metatheoretical discussion by aggregation, then the conditions under which the discussion could conceivably have come to a halt are such as to provide no support for the claim that it is rational to aggregate, rather than to consider the discussion unresolved until more information is available.</description><subject>Aggregation</subject><subject>Argumentation</subject><subject>Debate</subject><subject>Epistemology</subject><subject>Intuition</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Rational choice theory</subject><subject>Rationality</subject><subject>Reason</subject><subject>Weighted averages</subject><issn>0039-7857</issn><issn>1573-0964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1987</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AIMQZ</sourceid><sourceid>AKNXY</sourceid><sourceid>HYQOX</sourceid><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>~P3</sourceid><sourceid>~PQ</sourceid><recordid>eNpF0MFKxDAQBuAgCtbVi3eh4E2oTpImab1ILa4KC4oseCxpOq0tu82atIJvb7Wip5mBj2HmJ-SUwiUFUFe3S4A4EZLzPRJQoXgEqYz3SQDA00glQh2SI-87AEplDAHJX_TQ2l5vwtz2Hns_Tu2zswar0eF1mLlm3GI__KjQuvAV2-ZtwCrMPtDppu2bm2NyUOuNx5PfuiDr5d06f4hWT_ePebaKDFPpEGmlIREUSm5MqowyZYJc8HgaGOiy1kZKxVKZIktAAEeKUtasErTkTCFfkPN57c7Z9xH9UHR2dNPpvqB8-l6IOE4mdTEr46z3Duti59qtdp8FheI7o-I_owmfzbjzg3V_ks3pCP4FVXJhMQ</recordid><startdate>19870601</startdate><enddate>19870601</enddate><creator>Braaten, Jane</creator><general>D. Reidel Publishing Company</general><general>D. Reidel Pub. Co., etc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABKTN</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>AKNXY</scope><scope>GYTRX</scope><scope>HDMVH</scope><scope>HYQOX</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>JWXEY</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>~P2</scope><scope>~P3</scope><scope>~PQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19870601</creationdate><title>Rational Consensual Procedure: Argumentation or Weighted Averaging?</title><author>Braaten, Jane</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c279t-a7a08510b3cc97c7cb8e3534c9720abfac6672969e280503e1e66f2d51b327e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1987</creationdate><topic>Aggregation</topic><topic>Argumentation</topic><topic>Debate</topic><topic>Epistemology</topic><topic>Intuition</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Rational choice theory</topic><topic>Rationality</topic><topic>Reason</topic><topic>Weighted averages</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Braaten, Jane</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online JSTOR Titles</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online Collection 4 (2022)</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 11</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 15</collection><collection>ProQuest Historical Periodicals</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 39</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature - U.S. Customers Only</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>PAO Collection 4</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online Collection 4</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online Liberal Arts Collection 4</collection><jtitle>Synthese (Dordrecht)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Braaten, Jane</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Rational Consensual Procedure: Argumentation or Weighted Averaging?</atitle><jtitle>Synthese (Dordrecht)</jtitle><date>1987-06-01</date><risdate>1987</risdate><volume>71</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>347</spage><epage>354</epage><pages>347-354</pages><issn>0039-7857</issn><eissn>1573-0964</eissn><abstract>The following is a defense of Jurgen Habermas' argumentational consensual procedure against Keith Lehrer and Carl Wagner's weighted averaging consensual procedure (and, I tentatively claim, against any weighted averaging consensual procedure). The argument is twofold: if Lehrer and Wagner intend, implicity, to replace what is for Habermas the metatheoretical stage of a discussion with the aggregation of judgments of respect, then their procedure fails to make use of all available information and the participants are not committed to the weighted average position on these grounds; if, on the other hand, they do not intend to replace metatheoretical discussion by aggregation, then the conditions under which the discussion could conceivably have come to a halt are such as to provide no support for the claim that it is rational to aggregate, rather than to consider the discussion unresolved until more information is available.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>D. Reidel Publishing Company</pub><doi>10.1007/BF00485633</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0039-7857 |
| ispartof | Synthese (Dordrecht), 1987-06, Vol.71 (3), p.347-354 |
| issn | 0039-7857 1573-0964 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1310055448 |
| source | Periodicals Index Online; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Alma/SFX Local Collection; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Aggregation Argumentation Debate Epistemology Intuition Judgment Rational choice theory Rationality Reason Weighted averages |
| title | Rational Consensual Procedure: Argumentation or Weighted Averaging? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T01%3A35%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Rational%20Consensual%20Procedure:%20Argumentation%20or%20Weighted%20Averaging?&rft.jtitle=Synthese%20(Dordrecht)&rft.au=Braaten,%20Jane&rft.date=1987-06-01&rft.volume=71&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=347&rft.epage=354&rft.pages=347-354&rft.issn=0039-7857&rft.eissn=1573-0964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/BF00485633&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E20116405%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1310055448&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=20116405&rfr_iscdi=true |