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

Authors

  • Harvey Siegel University of Miami
  • John Biro University of Florida

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v30i4.3057

Keywords:

epistemic theory, pragma-dialectical theory, arguments, argumentation, normative evaluation, justification

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.

Author Biographies

Harvey Siegel, University of Miami

Professor, Dept of Philosophy

John Biro, University of Florida

Professor, Dept of Philosophy

Downloads

Published

2010-12-15

Issue

Section

Reply