In this inspiring book Harald Wohlrapp sets out to provide a foundational account of argumentation, richly supported with examples, case studies, and not without a polemical attitude to much of mainstream argumentation theory. It is a philosophical analysis, rather than a discourse-analytic approach, offering a more parsimonious way of theory construction than is common to much of the research on argumentation, often resorting to typologies (e.g., fallacies, dialogue types), and building on the speech-act theories of Grice and Searle (e.g., pragma-dialectics). In his dialectic and pragmatic theory ‘‘the goal of any argumentation is testing validity claims’’ (p. 235), and Wohlrapp treats knowledge not as static but as coming-to-be and passing away. His pragmatic concept of ‘‘theory’’ is used to construct a minimal theory of argumentation, based on three basic operations (asserting, justifying, and criticizing, pp. 134–161). His study of validity comes with a dichotomy between epistemic and thetic theories (the latter referring to theses where justification does not produce knowledge), and a detailed discussion of various forms of relativism and universalism, touching on themes that have long been discussed in science education. The book also includes a compact but detailed guide to argument analysis (pp. 321–323), and some of the analyzed case studies span dozens of pages. The theory utilizes an abstract concept of ‘‘frames’’ and delineates four ways of handling heterogeneity and overcoming frame differences. Frame criticism raises an objection presupposing an external perspective, frame hierarchization subsumes a divergent frame to another, frame harmonization makes two frames compatible, and frame synthesis provides a superseding higher frame. The successive moves of an argumentative exchange are played out in dialogue events: