English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The author considers that the criticism which Haba directs at the standard theory of argumentation is right «in most cases», but that he does not take into account certain relevant aspects which would then give it a certain value. Sarlo particularly considers the possibility of understanding this theory as an ideal type in a Weberian sense; or starting from the distinction between context of discovery and context of justification, in order to rescue at least a certain dimension of «argumentative rationality». Apart from this, Sarlo agrees with Haba with regard to the possibility and advisability of «having a theory of argumentation in a descriptive/explanatory sense». In his opinion, the main epistemic obstacle to this lies in the «intellectual laziness» of many academics who are unwilling to «reflect upon their own reality, as is demanded by a legal theory sensitive to the facts».

Algunas observaciones críticas al trabajo de Enrique P. Haba