Abstract

Some authors have argued that consideration of alternative claims, theories, or worldviews is necessary for a proper or sound critical assessment of a claim or set of claims. However, an understanding of interpretation and beliefs as inherently holistic suggests that interpretation already involves the recogllition of alternatives, and that therefore assessment also necessarily involves their comparison. Starting from this idea, it will be argued that presuppositions can be regarded as limits to the range of alternatives that are considered by the author of the claims, as seen by an interpreter making the assessment. However, a result of this consists in the fact that these assumptions can only be found in the conversational interaction between the author’s and the interpreter’s broader belief systems. Some implications for a conversational form of criticality will also be derived from here.