What, outside of our logical theories, makes us believe that the theories are reliable, and what is it that warrants them? What I propose is that it is just our argumentative practices; that logic is a theory of the practices in a sense similar to (though not the same as) that in which physics is a theory of the antics of spatio-temporal objects. Critics object that this approach would degrade logic to something on the level of etiquette, insisting that the laws of logic are absolute and hence independent of any parochial human practices. This paper argues that once we understand the true nature of our practices (such as that of argumentation or drawing inferences), our suggestion becomes feasible. What we must understand is that the practices consist not only of moves (like giving reasons or drawing inferences), but also of consonant assessments of (or the assuming of "normative attitudes" toward) such moves.