The Dilemma of Normativity: How to Interpret a Rational Reconstruction? [Book Review]

Argumentation 11 (4):411-417 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX


In modern argument theory argumentative practice is often analyzed and evaluated in terms of its correspondences with or deviations from a normative model. Such a methodology implies that there are three moments at which evaluations takes place which are not guided by the norms of the model itself because they imply an interpretation of the model by the analyst. This is demonstrated by an analogy with legal practice. this implies that an evaluation of an argumentative practice is not only relative to choice of the normative model as such, but also relative to the threefold interpretation of the model



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,347

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

What Ought the Nation to Be?Donald Ipperciel - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 50:269-277.


Added to PP

27 (#593,400)

6 months
7 (#440,136)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

From Axiom to Dialogue.E. M. Barth & E. C. W. Krabbe - 1985 - Studia Logica 44 (2):228-230.
Meaning and truth in judicial decision.Jerzy Wróblewski - 1979 - Helśinki: Juridica. Edited by Aulis Aarnio.

Add more references