Exchanging Reasons: responses to critics

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.

Keywords

• the concept of justification
• constitutive and regulative normativity
• inference-claims
• semantic appraisal
• toulmin’s model
• warrants
• pragmatic dimension of argumentation