Exchanging Reasons: responses to critics



Published 01-09-2011
Lilian Bermejo-Luque


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.

How to Cite

Bermejo-Luque, L. (2011). Exchanging Reasons: responses to critics . THEORIA. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 26(3), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.2954
Abstract 525 | PDF Downloads 255



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