Exchanging Reasons
Theoria 26 (3):329-343 (2011)
| Abstract | ABSTRACT: I provide responses to what I take to be the most salient aspects of John Biro, James Freeman, David Hitchcock, Robert Pinto, Harvey Siegel and Luis Vega’s criticisms to the normative model for argumentation that I have developed in Giving Reasons. Each response is articulated on a main question, i.e., the distinction between regulative and constitutive normativity within Argumentation Theory’s models, the semantic appraisal of argumentation, the concept of justification, the differences between Toulmin’s model and my model of argument and the analysis of the pragmatic dimension of argumentation.RESUMEN: Ofrezco respuestas a lo que considero son los aspectos más destacados de las críticas de John Biro, James Freeman, David Hitchcock, Robert Pinto, Harvey Siegel y Luis Vega al modelo normativo para la argumentación que he desarrollado en Giving Reasons. Cada respuesta se articula en torno a una cuestión principal, i.e., la distinción entre normatividad constitutiva y regulativa dentro de los modelos de la Teoría de la Argumentación, la evaluación semántica de la argumentación, el concepto de justificación, las diferencias entre el modelo de Toulmin y mi modelo de argumento y el análisis de la dimension pragmática de la argumentación | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,631 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesLilian Bermejo-Luque (2011). Giving Reasons, A Contribution to Argumentation Theory. Theoria 26 (3):273-277.
John Biro & Harvey Siegel (2011). Argumentation, Arguing, and Arguments. Theoria 26 (3):279-287.
Robert C. Pinto (2011). The Account of Warrants in Bermejo-Luque's Giving Reasons. Theoria 26 (3):311-320.
James B. Freeman (2011). The Logical Dimension of Argumentation and Its Semantic Appraisal in Bermejo-Luque's Giving Reasons. Theoria 26 (3):289-299.
Cristián Santibáñez (2012). Argumentation Theory as Applied Epistemology. Cinta de Moebio (43):24-39.
David Hitchcock (2011). Arguing as Trying to Show That a Target-Claim is Correct. Theoria 26 (3):301-309.
Eduardo De Bustos (1996). Metáforas Polémicas: El Caso de la Argumentación (Polemic Metaphors: The Case of Argumentation). Theoria 11 (1):21-40.
Eduardo De Bustos (1996). Metáforas polémicas: el caso de la argumentación (Polemic Metaphors: The Case of Argumentation). Theoria 11 (1):21-40.
C. Andone (2012). Bermejo-Luque, Lilian. Giving Reasons. A Linguistic-Pragmatic Approach to Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 26 (2):291-296.
Harvey Siegel & John Biro (1997). Epistemic Normativity, Argumentation, and Fallacies. Argumentation 11 (3):277-292.
Christián C. Carman (2005). La Distinción Teórico/Observacional: ¿Favorece o Perjudica Al Realismo Científico? (Is the Observational/Theoretical Distinction Negative or Favorable for Scientific Realism?). Crítica 37 (111):83 - 96.
Luis Vega Reñón (2008). Sobre Paralogismos: Ideas Para Tener En Cuenta (About Paralogisms: Some Ideas to Keep in Mind). Crítica 40 (119):45 - 65.
María G. Navarro (2011). Etapas/ Fases de la Argumentación. In Luis Vega and Paula Olmos Gómez (ed.), Compendio de Lógica, Argumentación y Retórica. Editorial Trotta.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2012-03-18Total downloads3 ( #201,695 of 548,969 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,511 of 548,969 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
