A Case for Different Standards of Argumentative Rationality

Abstract

I argue for different standards of argumentative rationality from considerations concerning Biro and Siegel’s criticism of van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s conception of argumentative rationality associated with their pragmatic-dialectic theory of argumentation. I claim that this criticism assumes a univocal standard of rationality associated with argumentation. I then argue against this assumption, which makes sense of how an argument judged bad by the lights of a given theory of argument may nevertheless rationalize believing its conclusion.