Abstract
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 language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 457-480 |
Number of pages | 24 |
Journal | Informal Logic |
Volume | 30 |
Issue number | 4 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 2010 |
Keywords
- Argumentation
- Arguments
- Epistemic theory
- Justification
- Normative evaluation
- Pragma-dialectical theory
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Philosophy