Abstract

The tradition of philosophy relies on the hard rationality, which has the standard logic as and its application as its fundamental model. Knowledge and reason are relegated to only two options: hard rationality or irrationality. By attentively studying the history of science and its debates, Dascal comes out with his types of polemics theory. There are two types of polemics that are related to that dichotomized view of rationality: The discussion, guided by hard rationality, and the dispute, the “pathological” debate guided by no rationality. Dascal brings out an alternative via, the controversy. The controversy is able to deal with a range of inquiries from science that remains unsolved, such as those that are inaccurate and uncertain. To be up with this open frame of questions for the debate and to accomplish persuasion, the controversy employs what Dascal calls soft rationality that is about what is reasonable. Aristotle, as it is well-known, presents the hard rationality of science on the Analytics. My aim here is to show that we can find a philosophical support for soft rationality even in the traditional Aristotelian view.