Abstract
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 reasonable two requirements have to be fulfilled. The argumentation should comply with rules which are both problem-valid and intersubjectively valid. Geometrical and anthropological perspectives don't meet these criteria, but a critical perspective does. It is explained that a pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation which agrees with this critical perspective is indeed problem-valid and that strong pragmatic and utilitarian arguments can be given for its intersubjective validity. Thus, conventional validity is promoted for a code of conduct for discussants who want to resolve their disputes reasonably by way of a critical discussion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albert, H.: 1967, ‘Theorie und Praxis. Max Weber und das Problem der Wertfreiheit und der Rationalität’, in Ernst Oldemeyer (ed.), Die Philosophie und die Wissenschaften. Simon Moser zum 65. Geburtstag, Meisenheim am Glan.
Albert, H.: 1975, Traktat über Kritische Vernunft, (1st ed. 1968) Mohr, Tübingen.
Aristotle, De Anima, (Loeb edition).
Barth, E. M. and E. C. W. Krabbe: 1982, From Axiom to Dialogue, De Gruyter, Berlin.
Bentham, Jeremy: 1838–1843, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, 11 vols., J. Bouring (ed.): 1952, Edinburgh.
Burleson, B. R.: 1979, ‘On the Foundations of Rationality: Toulmin, Habermas, and the a Priori of Reason’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 16 (2), 112–127.
Eemeren, Frans H. van: 1986, ‘Dialectical analysis as a normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse’, Text 6 (1), 1–16.
Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, Holland/Providence, USA.
Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst: 1987, ‘Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective’, Argumentation 1 (3), 283–301.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst and Tjark Kruiger: 1987, Handbook of Argumentation Theory. A Critical Survey of Classical Backgrounds and Modern Studies, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, Holland/Providence, USA.
Feyerabend, P. K.: 1975, Against Method, Verso Editions/NLB, London.
Groot, A. D. de: 1984, ‘The Theory of Science Forum: Subject and Purport’, Methodology and Science, 17 (4), 230–259.
Groot, Adriaan D. de: 1987, ‘Signific Concept Analysis’, in Achim Eschenbach (ed.), Semiotik, in press.
Haack, S.: 1978, Philosophy of Logics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Habermas, J.: 1971, ‘Vorbereitende Bemarkungen zu einer theorie der Kommunikativen Kompetenz’. In J. Habermas and H. Luhmann, Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie; Was Leistet die Systemforschung?, Surkamp, Frankfurt, pp. 107–141.
James, William: 1907, Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking: Popular Lectures on Philosophy, Longmans, Green and Co., New York.
Jarvie, J. C.: 1976, ‘Toulmin and the Rationality of Science’, in R. S. Cohen et al. (eds.), Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 311–334.
Kahane, Howard: 1973, Logic and Philosophy. A Modern Introduction, (2nd. ed.), Wadsworth, Belmont, California.
Kahane, Howard: 1976, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Rhetoric in Everyday Life, (2nd ed.; 1st. ed. 1971), Wadsworth, Belmont, California.
Kamlah, W.: 1973, Philosophie Anthropologie. Sprachkritische Grundlegung und Ethik, Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim.
Kuhn, T. S.: 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lakatos, Imre: 1963–1964, ‘Proofs and Refutations’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 14, 1–25, 120–139, 221–243, 296–342.
Mill, J. S.: 1863, Utilitarianism, Liberty, Representative Government: Selections from Auguste Comte and Positivism, H. B. Acton (ed.): 1972, Dent, London.
Naess, A.: 1966, Communication and Argument. Elements of Applied Semantics. Universitetsforlaget/Allen and Unwin, Oslo.
O'Keefe, D. J.: 1977, ‘Two Concepts of Argument’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 13, 121–128.
Passmore, J.: 1972, A Hundred Years of Philosophy, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth (Middlesex).
Perelman, Ch.: 1980, Justice, Law, and Argument: Essays on Moral and Legal Reasoning, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.
Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1958, La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Traité de l'Argumentation. Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, Brussels.
Popper, K. R.: 1971, ‘Oracular Philosophy and the revolt against reason’, in The Open Society and Its Enemies.
Popper, K. R.: 1971, The Open Society and Its Enemies, 2 vols., (5th ed.; 1st ed. 1945), Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Popper, K. R.: 1972, Objective Knowledge: an Evolutionary Approach, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Toulmin, S. E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Toulmin, S. E.: 1972, Human Understanding, Vol. 1, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Toulmin, S. E.: 1976, Knowing and Acting: An Invitation to Philosophy, Macmillan, New York/Collier MacMillan, London.
Toulmin, S. E., R. Rieke, and A. Janik: 1979, An Introduction to Reasoning, MacMillman, New York/Collier MacMillan, London.
Wenzel, J. W.: 1979, ‘Jürgen Habermas and the Dialectical Perspective on Argumentation’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 16 (2), 83–94.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R. Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation 2, 271–291 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00178026
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00178026