Normativity of logic and everyday reasoning

Abstract

A motivating factor for this paper is Danilo Šuster’s excellent book Moč argumenta (The Strength of Argument) on informal logic. The paper adds to the meta-theoretic issue concerning discrepancy between formal methods and their applicability to human reasoning, which is indicated, but insufficiently developed in the book. Two approaches discussed in the contemporary debates on everyday reasoning and argumentation deserve special attention. The first is Mercier and Sperber’s evolutionarily determined argumentative theory of reasoning, and the second Catarina Dutilh Novaes’ dialogical, multi-agent theory. My view, partly based on the two theories, is that inherited individual deductive abilities can be improved through argumentation. Rather than claiming that the social, multi-agent aspect always predominates individual thinking, I hold that the argumentative process possesses ameliorative resources that (under favorable conditions) can enhance human reasoning.