In this article I first examine the nature of the case for regarding inclusion as a conversational and theoretical ideal. I argue that inclusion is best understood as a moral rather than an epistemological virtue. I then try to show that embracing inclusion as a conversational and theoretical ideal does not require either the rejection of the universal, or the rejection of scholarly standards.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harvey Siegel (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: