How Should We Reason? Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives

Idea and Motivation

According to a long-standing insight going back to Hume, the normative and the descriptive are distinct in kind, so that it is wrong to conclude “is” from “ought” or vice versa. And yet, in a variety of contexts, the normative and the descriptive seem to be closely intertwined in many ways. Accordingly, the relationship between the two is as yet poorly understood. This is detrimental not only to philosophical efforts at normativity, but also to descriptive research that draws on normative concepts. This workshop will comprehensively discuss this intertwining. In particular, we are interested in exploring different theoretical frameworks for theory building and examining case studies associated with new normative challenges. In doing so, the workshop will not least promote interdisciplinary dialogue on human reasoning and argumentation. The workshop is part of the AHRC-DFG funded project “Normative vs. Descriptive Accounts in the Philosophy and Psychology of Reasoning and Argumentation: Tension or Productive Interplay? ”.

Further Information

• Website of "How Should We Reason? Philosophical and Psychological Perspective"