The pragma-dialectician's dilemma: Reply to Garssen and van Laar

Harvey Siegel, John Biro

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterpeer-review

9 Scopus citations


Garssen and van Laar in effect concede our main criticism of the pragma-dialectical approach. The criticism is that the conclusions of arguments can be 'P-D reasonable' yet patently unreasonable, epistemically speaking. The concession consists in the claim that the theory "remains restricted to the investigation of standpoints in the light of particular sets of starting points" which are "up to individual disputants to create" and the admission that all the relevant terms of normative appraisal have been redefined. We also discuss their criticisms of the epistemic account of argumentation and argument evaluation and raise some new questions about the approach they defend.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)457-480
Number of pages24
JournalInformal Logic
Issue number4
StatePublished - 2010


  • Argumentation
  • Arguments
  • Epistemic theory
  • Justification
  • Normative evaluation
  • Pragma-dialectical theory

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy


Dive into the research topics of 'The pragma-dialectician's dilemma: Reply to Garssen and van Laar'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this