Argumentation

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 191–203 | Cite as

Rationality, Reasonableness, and Critical Rationalism: Problems with the Pragma-dialectical View

Article

Abstract

A major virtue of the Pragma-Dialectical theory of argumentation is its commitment to reasonableness and rationality as central criteria of argumentative quality. However, the account of these key notions offered by the originators of this theory, Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, seems to us problematic in several respects. In what follows we criticize that account and suggest an alternative, offered elsewhere, that seems to us to be both independently preferable and more in keeping with the epistemic approach to arguments and argumentation we favor.

Keywords

Critical rationalism  Münchhausen Trilemma  Pragma-dialectic Rationality  Reasonableness Justification 

References

  1. Biro, J., and H. Siegel. 1992. Normativity, argumentation and an epistemic theory of fallacies. In Argumentation illuminated Ch. 7, eds. F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, and C.A. Willard, 85–103. Amsterdam: SICSAT.Google Scholar
  2. Biro, J., and H. Siegel. 2006. Pragma-dialectic versus epistemic theories of arguing and arguments: Rivals or partners? In Considering pragma-dialectics, eds. P. Houtlosser, and A. van Rees, 1–10. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Biro, J., and H. Siegel. 2006a. In defense of the objective epistemic approach to argumentation. Informal Logic, 26:91–101.Google Scholar
  4. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Lakatos, I. 1974. Popper on demarcation and induction. In Schilpp (1974), 241–273.Google Scholar
  6. Levison, A. 1974. Popper, hume, and the traditional problem of induction. In Schilpp (1974), 322–331.Google Scholar
  7. Miller, D. 1985. Editor’s introduction. In Popper selections. ed. D. Miller, 9–22. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Miller, D. 1994. Critical rationalism: A restatement and defense. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  9. Newton-Smith, W.H. 1981. The rationality of science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  10. Oddie, G. 1996. Rescuing reason. Philosophy 71:445–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. O’Hear, A. 1980. Karl Popper. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  12. Popper, K.R. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  13. Popper, K.R. 1963. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  14. Popper, K.R. 1972. Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Popper, K.R. 1974. Replies to my critics. In Schilpp (1974), 961–1197.Google Scholar
  16. Putnam, H. 1974. The “Corroboration” of theories. In Schilpp (1974), 221–240.Google Scholar
  17. Salmon, W.C. 1966. The foundations of scientific inference. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  18. Schilpp, P.A. ed. 1974. The philosophy of Karl Popper. (The Library of Living Philosophers, Vol. XIV.) La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  19. Siegel, H. 1997. Rationality redeemed?: Further dialogues on an educational ideal. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Siegel, H., and J. Biro 1997. Epistemic normativity, argumentation, and fallacies. Argumentation 11:277–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Williams, M. 1999. Skepticism. In The Blackwell guide to epistemology. eds. J. Greco, and E. Sosa, 35–69. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Williams, M. 2005. Doing without immediate justification. In Contemporary debates in epistemology. eds. M. Steup, and E. Sosa, 202–216. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations