Abstract This pilot study investigated scientific argumentation from a pragma-dialectical methodological approach with the aim of characterizing possible prototypical argumentative patterns by reconstructing argumentation structures, and identifying and analyzing the standpoints, arguments, starting points, and strategies. The results corroborated the findings of previous studies regarding the complexity of standpoints, structures, and patterns, the dialogical nature attained by advancing doubts and criticism, and the important role of exploratory argumentation (comparing and evaluating options). New insights also emerged: Causal argumentation appeared to play a more pervasive role than was previously assumed, which was supported by different subtypes of argument schemes. Furthermore, scientific argumentation proved to be indirect but strong, with standpoints that were not predominantly descriptive, and weighing was used strategically.