T. Govier's description of ‘conductive argument’ and 'A priori analogy' is taken as a start to investigate non-deductive argumentation. It is here argued, that the nature of those types can be better understood when taking up a dynamic view (in addition to the usual structural view). The concepts of ‘frame’ and ‘position’ are constructed in order to establish such a twofold approach.

The paper consists of three parts. The aim of the first part is to depict the concept of science in the analytic philosophy of science to point out its characteristic defects. The second part shows how the constructive philosophy of science is able to avoid these defects by honouring not special modes of research but speicial modes of foundation of results in research with its criteria for science. The third part finally refutes the main counter-arguments of analytic philosophy of science (...) against the constructive. (shrink)

The theoretical labor carried out over the past half-century in the field of argumentation theory has become so rich, heterogenous, and controversial by now that there is an urgent need for a philosophically reflected foundation. The present book attempts to deliver such a basis using, in particular, elements of dialectics and pragmatism. It approaches argumentation against the background of the conditio humana: as the medium of maintaining and improving orientation for all aspects of life. This perspective is more abstract than (...) the usual way of addressing argument as a specific way of persuasive communication. However, that abstract philosophical perspective allows, on a concrete level, a more realistic theorization of the practice of argument. Thus, it exhibits some significant new traits, mainly concerning its subjective and its dynamic side. (shrink)

The paper provides a series of responses to the papers published in Vol. 37, No. 3, of this journal that explored the ideas in Harald Wohlrapp’s The Concept of Argument, where arguing is understood as the theoretical or theory-forming activity that can be found in research of all kinds. Thus, the approach taken focuses on the validity of theses. This approach is clarified further as the author considers points raised by his commentators and provides answers and, where necessary, corrections.