Investigations and the Critical Discussion Model

Abstract

I argue that although the pragma-dialectical analysis is said to focus on the process of argumentation aimed at resolving a difference of opinion, proponents of that theory hold that any actual argumentation (“argumentative reality”) is to be, or is best, analyzed using the pragma-dialectical “ideal model of a critical discussion.” The chapter argues against this assimilation of argumentative reality to argumentation aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. It does so by spelling out a counter-example—what is entailed in using argumentation for the purpose of an epistemic investigation, and showing that the roles and objectives of the parties are different in the two uses of arguments, and that consequently the discussion rules for the two will differ. And yet it is conceded that something very like the critical discussion model can be applied to epistemic investigative argumentation. The chapter offers an explanation of this puzzle.