Volume 5, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Eemeren, F.H. van
    (2010) Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  2. Eemeren, F.H. van , and R. Grootendorst
    1984Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Foris. doi: 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Kuhn, T.S
    1977a A function for thought experiments. InThe Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition, 240–265. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (1977b) The essential tension: Tradition and innovation in scientific research. InThe Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition, 225–240. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Norton, J.D
    (1996) Are thought experiments just what you thought?Canadian Journal of Philosophy26 (3): 333–366. doi: 10.1080/00455091.1996.10717457
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1996.10717457 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Book Review
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error