Normative theories of argumentation tend to assume that logical and dialectical rules suffice to ensure the rationality of debates. Yet empirical research on human inference shows that people systematically fall prey to cognitive and motivational biases which give rise to various forms of irrational reasoning. Inasmuch as these biases are typically unconscious, arguers can be unfair and tendentious despite their genuine efforts to follow the rules of argumentation. I argue that arguers remain nevertheless responsible for the rationality of their reasoning, insofar as they can (and arguably ought to) counteract such biases by adopting indirect strategies of argumentative self-control.Résumé: Les théories normatives de l'argumentation tendent à présumer que les règles de la logique et de la dialectique suffisent pour assurer la rationalité du discours argumentatif. Pourtant, la recherche empirique sur l'inférence humaine montre que nous sommes souvent affectés par des biais cognitifs et motivationnels qui conduisent à diverses formes de raisonnement irrationnel. Etant donné que ces biais sont inconscients, chacun peut se montrer tendancieux en dépit de l'effort pour respecter les règles d'argumentation. Je soutiens que chacun demeure néanmoins responsable de la rationalité de ses raisonnements, dans la mesure où l'on peut neutraliser ces biais moyennant certaines stratégies d'autocontrôle argumentatif.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.