The Kisceral: Reason and Intuition in Argumentation
First Online: 26 April 2011 DOI:
Cite this article as: Gilbert, M.A. Argumentation (2011) 25: 163. doi:10.1007/s10503-011-9210-2 Abstract
Gilbert’s four modes of communication include the logical, the emotional, the visceral and the kisceral, which last has not received much attention at all. This mode covers the forms of argument that rely on intuition and undefended basal assumptions. These forms range from the scientific and mathematical to the religious and mystical. In this paper these forms will be examined, and suggestions made for ways in which intuitive frameworks can be compared and valued.
Keywords Kisceral Intuition Multi-modal argument Conceptual frameworks
A previous version of this paper entitled, “Reason and Intuition: The kisceral mode of communication,” was presented at
The Seventh Conference of the International Society for the study of Argumentation in Amsterdam. Thanks go to all commentators and referees. This work has been supported by a Canada Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Standard Grant # 410-2008-1999. References
Burgin, M. 2001. Diophantine and non-diophantine arithmetics: Operations with numbers in science and everyday life.
LANL, Preprint Mathematics, 27.
Chang, C. 1954. Reason and intuition in Chinese philosophy.
Philosophy East and West
CrossRef Google Scholar
Damasio, A.R. 1994.
Descartes’ error: Emotion reason, and the human brain
. New York: G.P. Putnam.
Fricker, M. 1995. Intuition and reason.
CrossRef Google Scholar
Gilbert, M.A. 1997.
. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gilbert, M.A. 2007. Natural normativity: Argumentation theory as an engaged discipline.
Gilbert, M.A. 2008.
How to win an argument: Surefire strategies for getting your point across
, 3rd ed. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Gilovich, T. 1991.
How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life
. NewYork Toronto: Free Press; Maxwell Macmillan Canada; Maxwell Macmillan International.
The edition of the oxford English dictionary
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Parsons, C. 2000. Reason and intuition.
Synthese: An International Journal for EpistemologyMethodology and Philosophy of Science
Perelman, C. 1979. The new rhetoric: A theory of practical reasoning.
The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and its Applications, 174.
Sosa, D. 2006. Scepticism about intuition.
Philosophy: The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy
Toulmin, S.E. 1958.
The uses of argument
. Cambridge, England: University Press.
van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans. 1996.
Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments
. Mahwah NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Warren, K. 1988. Critical thinking and feminism.
Willard, C.A. 1989.
A theory of argumentation
. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Google Scholar Copyright information
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011