Profile

The rise of populism is currently threatening democracy in many Western societies. Populism may simply be the symptom of a general disappointment in democracy or the changes in political and societal communication brought about by the internet. But it certainly is fueled by a social divide in our societies and a lack of inclusive debate and democratic deliberation. I strongly believe that argumentation and debate are the best means to solve conflicts, to coordinate (doxastic) differences, and to bridge the gap between people with different interests and convictions. In other words, I believe that argumentation and debate are our best chance to counter political polarization, populism, fake news, and hate speech.

My aim is to strengthen both deliberative and participatory democracy by uncovering the conditions for constructive conflict. I am particularly interested in how (and whether) people change their convictions based on rational argumentation. Are good arguments ultimately convincing also to someone who does not share one's beliefs already? How are we to argue with people who believe in "alternative facts?" Are there specific argumentative practices tied to modern populism? But the question that contains all the others is: How can the quality of public debates be improved? I work at DebateLab with Gregor Betz to answer this question.

I'm a member of the European Network for Argumentation and Public Policy Analysis (APPLY: Cost Action 17132), trying to improve the way European citizens understand, evaluate and contribute to public debate and political decision-making. Also, I'm running the Forum für Streitkultur with Romy Jaster to practically improve the standards of discourse in Germany. Finally, I'm member of DFG's Arguing in the School network organised by David Löwenstein.

At the moment I'm analyzing arguments used by and against right-wing populist political parties and leaders in Europe. I am especially interested in the use of fake news and “alternative facts” within populist arguments as well as the effectiveness of rational argumentation in general.

I am also more generally interested in how to make philosophy fruitful to societal issues and in how to teach philosophy to students in universities and schools. Part of my research concerns thus questions of applied philosophy, philosophy of education, and the didactics of philosophy.

Areas of expertise

Philosophy of language, philosophy of law, epistemology, logic, argumentation theory, and didactics of philosophy

Areas of interest (non-exclusive)

Linguistics, psychology, political philosophy, moral philosophy, and philosophy of education

Selected Publications

Books

• Lanius, David (2019): Strategic Indeterminacy in the Law, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Jaster, Romy & David Lanius (2019): Die Wahrheit schafft sich ab. Wie Fake News Politik machen, Ditzingen: Reclam.

Papers

• Jaster, Romy & David Lanius (2021): “Speaking of Fake News: Definitions and Dimensions” in Amy Flowerree et al. (eds.): The Epistemology of Fake News, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 19-45.
• Lanius, David (2021): “What Is the Value of Vagueness?” Theoria 87 (3): 752-780.
• Jaster, Romy & David Lanius (2021): "Wenn Wahrheit wertlos wird - Demonstrativer Bullshit in der digitalisierten Öffentlichkeit" in Monika Waldis et al. (eds.): Politische Bildung für die «neue» Öffentlichkeit?, Heidelberg: Springer.
• Lanius, David (2020): "Argumentative Patterns of Right-Wing Populism: The Example of the 'Alternative for Germany'" in Catarina Dutilh Novaes et al. (eds.): Reason to Dissent: Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation, Groningen: College Publications: 77-98.
• Jaster, Romy & David Lanius (2020): "Schlechte Nachrichten: Fake News in Politik und Öffentlichkeit" in Ralf Hohlfeld et al. (eds.): Fake News und Desinformation: Herausforderungen für die vernetzte Gesellschaft und die empirische Forschung, Baden-Baden: Nomos: 245-268.
• Lanius, David (2020): "Meinungsfreiheit und die kommunikative Strategie der Rechtspopulisten" in Tanjev Schultz (ed.): Was darf man sagen? Meinungsfreiheit im Zeitalter des Populismus, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer: 75-112.
• Betz, Gregor & David Lanius (2020): "Philosophy of science for science communication in twenty-two questions" in Annette Leßmöllmann et al. (eds.): Science Communication, Berlin: De Gruyter: 3-28.
• Votsis, Ioannis & David Lanius (2019): Towards Foolproof Democracy: Improving Public Debate and Political Decision-Making (eds.). Moral Philosophy and Politics 6 (2): 203-209.
• Lanius, David (2019): "Intuitions and Values: Re-assessing the classical arguments against quantitative hedonism", Kriterion 34 (2):53-84.
• Jaster, Romy & David Lanius (2018): "What Is Fake News?", Versus 2 (127):207-227.
• Lanius, David (2017): Wie Argumentieren Rechtspopulisten? Eine Argumentationsanalyse des AfD-Wahlprogramms, ITZ: Diskussionspapiere.

Short CV

Links

davidlanius.de

forum-streitkultur.de