Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, T. 36 (2014), s. 231-239
In her paper “Argumentation theory and the conception of epistemic
justification”, Lilian Bermejo-Luque presents a critique of deductivism in argu-
mentation theory, as well as her own concept of epistemic justification inspired
by the views of Stephen Toulmin. Reading this paper induced me to reflect
on the mutual relation between the notions of justification and argumentation.
In this work I would like to first draw the reader’s attention to a few issues
which seem debatable to me, or which I find worth presenting from a slightly
different point of view than that of Lilian Bermejo-Luque. I agree that deduc-
tivism is not suitable for a general theory of evaluation of arguments although
the critique of deductivism presented by the Author appears as not fully ade-
quate to me. Then I proceed to presenting my doubts about the “conception of
justification as a proper outcome of good argumentation” presented in the work.
I need to emphasise that due to a broad range of topics addressed by me in this
short paper, the description of some of them will be neither fully precise nor