Amy Flowerree: SLIDES Georgi Gardiner: HANDOUT Catherine Hundleby: Amy -- It seems to me that your concerns have a great deal in common with the Poisoning the Well form of Ad Hominem argument. Of course, you are concerned with self-talk, I think. But the same things would apply, I think. In Walton’s view of ad hominem too, which is the most sophisticated I think most agree, it is also the case that all such fallacies have forms that can also be acceptable and indeed valuable. Tony Ward: Alessandra -- I don't know the detail of the Central Park 5 but in general the idea that confessions are believed because they're extracted seems very strange. Both legally (I[m a lawyer) and psychologically, the obvious explanation is that they're regarded as "voluntary" - and why would anyone confess voluntarily if it wasn't true? Of course if you know the pychological literature that's quite plausible - but are you putting your view forward as a general account of over-reliance on confessions? Felipe Medeiros: jane friedman has some stuff on that on her papers on inquiry Dennis Whitcomb: Right, thanks. I'll look back at them. As I recall, Jane thinks that knowing the answer to Q is incompatible with rationally opening inquiry into Q Ian Olasov: Re: Whitcomb: the third and fourth models you describe both sound plausible. One question: something like the socialized model will only work for illocutionary acts that aim to affect the conversational goals. But if the goal is to generalize Fricker's account of testimonial justice to arbitrary illocutionary acts, will this be satisfactory? Do promising, thanking, greeting, congratulating, etc. aim to affect the conversational goals in the right way? Dennis Whitcomb: Good question! I am not sure how my work here might (or might not) generalize to further illocutionary acts Nicolas Nicola: Perfect, thank you. Kazi Huda: Prof. Tanesini: Isn’t it possible to imagine a case where one is involuntarily led to offer false confession because the enforcer (falsely) believes X is right? [Here, X= the enforcer herself or another person absent in the conversation.] Alessandra Tanesini: Kazi- I am not sure I fully understand the question caseyjohnson: Amy, you mentioned charity briefly. I wonder about the relationship between psychologizing and the principle of charity. I’m thinking in particular about charitable interpretation of philosophical/historical texts. If there is an interesting relationship there, I wonder if there are epistemic as well as moral norms on psychologizing/charitable interpretation? Amy Flowerree: Casey, I think this is a really interesting question, and I have another paper on this too. I think there are moral reasons for an epistemic standard. But if there is any other literature others know about, I'd love to hear about it! Alexandra Lloyd: Dennis: Prof. Graham Oddie at CU Boulder is, I believe, doing some work on what makes a question valuable, which might be relevant to the most recent question and answer. Alessandra Tanesini: Dennis, Lani Watson has written on good questionining caseyjohnson: Dennis, Lani Watson has some work on Questions/questioning that might be useful. Dennis Whitcomb: Yes, I like Lani's work. She is more interested in an asking's being a good asking, and in a person's being a good asker, than in the questions (the things-asked) being good ones (or good ones in the context). All these phenomena are relevant Dennis Whitcomb: Thanks for the Oddie reference, I'll look into it Kazi Huda: Prof. Tanesine: Sometimes Y is forced or misled by X to confess something that Y herself doesn’t believe. This is sometimes seen in the courtroom where a witness is unknowingly confess something. Imagine this witness (i.e., Y) doesn’t know the nuances of conversation very well. So, she was led to a contradiction by X or her lawyer. [I have a complex case in my mind, but having difficulty to put it into words at this moment.] Alessandra Tanesini: Dennis, I think she has unpublished work on good questions rather than questioners at least I heard a presentation. Alessandra Tanesini: Kazi -- yes I agree lets talk more by email another time? caseyjohnson: Dennis, I wonder too if Kukla and Lance’s /Yo and Lo/ might be useful for thinking about questions. Dennis Whitcomb: It is! Some versions of the paper talk about that book