Includes bibliographical references (pages 203-221) and index.
Contents:
Part I. The epistemology of open-mindedness -- Open-mindedness -- A defense of (a different kind of) dogmatism -- The epistemic efficacy of amateurism -- Psychic phenomena and the existence of God -- Part II. The ethics of participation in argumentation -- The obligation to engage -- Against open-minded engagement (for some people) -- Against closed-minded engagement (in some situations) -- On inviting problematic speakers to campus.
Summary:
When should we engage with those we disagree with? Jeremy Fantl argues that sometimes we can know that arguments for controversial ideas go wrong even without engaging critically with them or figuring out where they err. Sometimes we shouldn't engage critically with an argument and, if we do engage, we shouldn't engage open-mindedly.
This resource is supported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act as administered by State Library of Iowa.