Pragma-Dialectics and the Function of Argumentation

  title={Pragma-Dialectics and the Function of Argumentation},
  author={Christoph Lumer},
This contribution discusses some problems of Pragma-Dialectics and explains them by its consensualistic view of the function of argumentation and by its philosophical underpinnings. It is suggested that these problems can be overcome by relying on a better epistemology and on an epistemological theory of argumentation. On the one hand Pragma-Dialectics takes unqualified consensus as the aim of argumentation, which is problematic, (Sect. 2) on the other it includes strong epistemological and… Expand

Figures from this paper

A Pragma-Dialectical Default on the Question of Truth
The problem with the pragma-dialectical view, it has been argued, is that it takes argumentation as aiming at consensus rather than truth or justified belief. The pragma- dialecticians often implyExpand
The Epistemic Inferiority of Pragma-Dialectics – Reply to Botting
In a recent paper in this journal, David Botting defended pragma-dialectics against epistemological criticisms by exponents of the epistemological approach to argumentation, i.e. Harvey Siegel, JohnExpand
A Pragma-Dialectical Response to Objectivist Epistemic Challenges
The epistemologists Biro and Siegel have raised two objections against the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. According to the first objection the pragma-dialectical theory is notExpand
Procedural Reasonableness and Normativity of Argumentation: Pragma-Dialectical Responses to Epistemologist Objections
Pragma-dialectical argumentation theory has received criticism from epistemological argumentation theorists. While the former emphasizes argumentation as aimed at resolving differences of opinionExpand
Procedural Reasonableness and Normativity of Argumentation
Pragma-dialectical argumentation theory has received criticism from epistemological argumentation theorists. While the former emphasizes argumentation as aimed at resolving differences of opinionExpand
The Pragma-Dialectical Theory Under Discussion
During the past thirty years the pragma-dialectical theorizing has developed in various steps from designing an abstract ideal model for critical discussion to examining strategic manoeuvring in theExpand
The pragma-dialectician's dilemma: Reply to Garssen and van Laar
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,Expand
Frans H. van Eemeren: Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation
The second volume of the bookseries Argumentation in Context, published by Benjamins, constitutes a dense monograph providing the first comprehensive and systematic exposition of the extendedExpand
The Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation Under Discussion
  • F. V. Eemeren
  • Sociology, Computer Science
  • Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse
  • 2015
When Rob Grootendorst and I started studying argumentation in the early 1970s, we were in the first place interested in developing methods for enhancing the quality of argumentative practices: theExpand
Argument schemes—an epistemological approach
The paper develops a classificatory system of basic argument types on the basis of the epis- temological approach to argumentation. This approach has provided strict rules for several kinds of argu-Expand


Investigations and the Critical Discussion Model
I argue that although the pragma-dialectical analysis is said to focus on the process of argumentation aimed at resolving a difference of opinion, proponents of that theory hold that any actualExpand
Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective
Starting from a concept of reasonableness as well-consideredness, it is discussed in what way science could serve as a model for reasonable argumentation. It turns out that in order to be reasonableExpand
The Epistemological Theory of Argument--How and Why?
The article outlines a general epistemological theory of argument: a theory that regards providingjustified belief as the principal aim of argumentation, and defends it instrumentalistically. AfterExpand
A Pragma-dialectical Procedure for a Critical Discussion
According to the pragma-dialectical ideal of reasonableness, in case of a difference of opinion the protagonist and the antagonist of a standpoint should attempt to find out by means of a criticalExpand
The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation - A Map
This contribution gives an overview of the epistemological approach to argumentation. It explains what an 'epistemological approach to argumentation' is, and justifies this approach as being betterExpand
Argument, Inference and Dialectic, Collected Papers on Informal Logic with an Introduction by Hans V. Hansen
  • R. Pinto
  • Mathematics, Computer Science
  • Argumentation Library
  • 2001
This chapter discusses Logic, Dialectic and the Practice of Rational Criticism, as well as Logic, Coherence and Psychology Revisited, as a whole, and its applications to Cognitive Science and the Future of RationalCriticism. Expand
Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective
Contents: Part I:Argumentation and Communication. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Standpoints and Differences of Opinion. Argumentation as a Complex Speech Act. Speech Acts in a Critical Discussion.Expand
The disputation — a special type of cooperative argumentative dialogue
This article consists of three parts, two introductory, in which the limits and the methods of analysis of dialogues are expounded, and the major part, in which the main features of a philosophicalExpand
Introduction: The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation--A Map
An overview of the epistemological approach to argumentation, explaining what it is, justifying it as better than a rhetorical or a consensual ist approach. systematizing the main directions andExpand
Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse
Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse analyzes argumentation in ordinary disputes. The analysis begins with an ideal model: a theoretical structure of discourse that might be used to resolve aExpand