Argumentative moves in a thought experiment

A thought experiment is a form of academic interaction in which two or more scholars discuss based on an imaginary scenario the acceptability of an aca-demic claim. The argumentative dimension of thought experiments has been the subject of intense debates: for some scholars, thought experiments are nothing but arguments; for others, they cannot be arguments. In this paper I propose approach-ing the argumentative dimension of thought experiments with pragma-dialectical re-construction tools. After a brief outline of the main positions taken with respect to the argumentative dimension of thought experiments, I explain the benefits of the proposed approach and I illustrate these by reconstructing a thought experiment as an exchange of argumentative moves. I conclude by reassessing the main positions taken in the debate.