DOCSLIB.ORG

Between Logic and Rhetoric: Toulmin's Theory of Argumentation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Between Logic and Rhetoric: Toulmin's Theory of Argumentation Provided by the author(s) and NUI Galway in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite the published version when available. Title Between Logic and Rhetoric Author(s) Canavan, Thomas, F. Publication Date 2012-02 Item record http://hdl.handle.net/10379/2729 Downloaded 2021-09-29T22:02:07Z Some rights reserved. For more information, please see the item record link above. Between Logic and Rhetoric: Toulmin’s Theory of Argumentation Candidate: Thomas F. Canavan Supervisors: Professor M. Woerner, Professor P. Crowther School of Humanities, Philosophy, N.U.I.G. Submitted: Feb. 2012 For Connie. Without her encouragement and assistance this work could not have been done. Acknowledgements I am grateful to many people for their assistance in the production of this study. Professor Markus Woerner, who oversaw the work from the beginning, was inspirational by the depth of his profound scholarship, challenging by the standards he set and generous in his attention to detail during the course of the supervision. I am grateful also to Professor Paul Crowther, Dr. Nick Tosh and other members of the Dept. of Philosophy at N.U.I.G. for their willing support and commitment. I wish to thank the members of staff at the library at N.U.I.G., especially those in the inter-library lending section, for their painstaking assistance and unfailing courtesy. From my family I received consistent encouragement and support with Frank providing technical facilitation.I can best show my appreciation by sharing with them anything I might have learned and a continuing enthusiasm for understanding. Abstract In The Uses of Argument (1958), Stephen E. Toulmin produced a model, analogous to procedures in jurisprudence, for the layout of arguments. He was seeking to provide a method of accommodating arguments in a wide range of situations, which he believed could not be encompassed by formal deductive logic. This study, Between Logic and Rhetoric: Toulmin‘s Theory of Argumentation, claims that, in spite of the initial hostile reaction from logicians, the model gained acceptance, especially in North America, as a valuable contribution to informal logic and argumentation theory. The study claims, further, that the Toulmin model remains centrally important to that discipline, not just as an historical landmark, but as a useful template for the construction, analysis and evaluation of arguments concerning matters of fact in areas such as ethics, aesthetics, communication studies, cognitive science and artificial intelligence, as well as those leading to decisions in matters of policy. The study proceeds by showing the rationale for Toulmin’s rejection of the then current hegemony of formal deductive logic and providing a justification for the six-element argument structure he introduces. It responds to the criticisms of those who rejected it, and identifies the aspects which commended the model to those who adopted it. The origins of the Toulmin model are related to the tradition of rhetoric extending from Aristotle, and Toulmin’s debts to his predecessors and contemporaries are acknowledged. In response to Toulmin’s suggestion that the layout of argument in The Uses of Argument (1958) might be capable of further development, the study examines some possible modifications which could render the model more efficacious without doing violence to the original inspiration. In addition, it deals with the suggestion that the Toulmin model is limited to matters of fact, by illustrating its use in decision-making, and it shows that the system can accommodate a wide range of argument modes, e.g. dialectical or persuasive. The study maintains that the versatility of the Toulmin model is related to the fact that the organisation of the six elements of a fully-fledged argument represent an organic development and reflect the natural progress of human verbal interaction in the justification of a claim, or, subsequently, from adequate and relevant support to a conclusion with the appropriate modal qualification. Finally, since democratic societies depend on genuine debate on contingent affairs, or “things which may be otherwise” (Aristotle), which are not amenable to demonstration by formal proofs, the Toulmin model of argumentation is particularly suited for democratic education in communicative action. Table of Contents Introduction 1 Ch.1. Ethics and Science: The Place of Reason 19 The Uses of Argument and the Contemporary Debate 19 Reason in Ethics: Contemporary Views 21 Conclusions “Worthy of Acceptance” 28 The Function of Ethics 29 Ethical Traditions 33 Reasoning in Science: Physics and Natural History 35 Rectilinear Propagation of Light and Snell’s Law 37 Inference in accordance with principles 41 Summary 43 Notes 45 Ch.2. The Toulmin Model 49 Putting Logical Theory in its Place 49 Fields of Argument and Modal Qualifiers 50 Probability 51 Analytic and Substantial Arguments 53 The Toulmin Model of Argumentation 59 Toulmin and Deduction 64 Logic and Epistemology 66 Summary 66 Notes 69 Ch.3. Toulmin and Aristotelian Ways of Reflecting on Reasoning: Topoi, Rhetorical Deduction and Induction 71 Aristotle’s Organon 74 Argumentation based on Topoi 75 Toulmin and Topics 83 Toulmin, Enthymeme and Paradigm 84 Topics: Toulmin and Perelman 91 Inference: The Primacy of Induction 93 Summary 100 Notes 102 Ch.4. Logicians’ Objections and Rhetoricians’ Defences 105 Logical Form and Analyticity: H.N. Castaneda 106 Misunderstanding the Purpose of Arguments: J.L. Cowan 115 Wrong Method of bringing Logic into Practice: P. Manicas 120 Pushing Contextualisation too far: R. Abelson 123 Rhetorical Utility: Brockriede, Ehninger and Trent 127 Summary 132 Notes 134 Ch.5. Toulmin and the Pragmatics of Informal Logic 137 Tension between Formal and Informal Logic 138 Definition and Precision of Language 140 Argument Today: Logical, Dialectical, Rhetorical 145 Argument Evaluation and the Rise of Acceptability 149 Toulmin and Fallacious Argumentation 156 Argumentation Schemes and Informal Logic 161 Summary 166 Notes 168 Ch.6. Toulmin and the Future of Informal Logic 172 The Uses of Argument: Democratic Society 172 Conference (2005): “Arguing on the Toulmin Model” 175 Possible Developments of the Toulmin Model 178 The Toulmin Model in Action: Argument Construction, Analysis and Evaluation 192 Argument Construction: Decision Making 194 Arguments Derived from or Leading to Speech Acts other than Constatives 196 Evaluation of Arguments 200 Summary 203 Notes 204 Conclusion 207 Bibliography 220 Introduction Introduction Stephen Toulmin identifies modernity with the events taking place in Europe during the period from c.1650 to the middle of the twentieth century. In retrospect, this period has been characterised by a confidence in the power of both science and philosophy to yield increasing degrees of certainty about all reality: in the fullness of time the world would succumb to rational explanation and control. The putative methods of science, i.e. hypothesis, experiment and verification/falsification, would be applied to all aspects of life and, for the logical positivist, those aspects of experience which did not fit within the pattern would be consigned to the realm of “non-sense”. Toulmin cites John Dewey’s Quest for Certainty (1929) as a wake-up call from this dream, and much of Toulmin’s own work is predicated on the conviction that the early confidence in what might at a later time be referred to as a “brave new world” was illusory. During the twentieth century, the metaphorical use of “seismic” to describe major social and/or political upheavals, gained currency as arrangements that seemed stable collapsed, and new arrangements, more or less stable, came into being. The virtual end of colonialism and the shifting of power blocs have meant that a global view must encompass not merely a reasonably homogenous, developed, liberal and democratic Western society, but also new alliances and power centres demanding and insisting on fair shares and opportunities for development in accordance with their own vision. In spite of the military conflicts, of which there has been no cessation during the course of the twentieth century, there have been continuous parallel efforts to achieve co-existence, but with an increasing recognition that contingency, rather than certainty, is the dominant feature of the political, as well as the natural, landscape. In the twenty-first century, an even more widespread appreciation of “seismic” change has been afforded by increased understanding of the movement of tectonic plates and the consequent movement of earth, water and potentially lethal radiation, as well as the degradation caused by global warming. Such matters, once the exclusive domain of experts and, sometimes, dogmatists, are now subjects of 1 Introduction common conversations among concerned citizens. Instability, rather than stability, is more and more becoming accepted as the default human condition. The earlier image of a society reflecting an orderly cosmos is no longer tenable; the inherent proneness of the cosmos itself to change is an everyday familiarity. The enhanced means of communication which have informed worldwide audiences of these trends have also served to render these same audiences more sceptical in their attitudes towards the previously dominant groups: governments, multinational corporations, religious dogmatists, and even accredited experts in the fields of finance or science, are subject to demands for explanation and justification, rather than mere pronouncement. In this context, it
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Averroes's Dialectic of Enlightenment
    59 AVERROES'S DIALECTIC OF ENLIGHTENMENT. SOME DIFFICULTIES IN THE CONCEPT OF REASON Hubert Dethier A. The Unity ofthe Intellect This theory of Averroes is to be combated during the Middle ages as one of the greatest heresies (cft. Thomas's De unitate intellectus contra Averroystas); it was active with the revolutionary Baptists and Thomas M"Unzer (as Pinkstergeest "hoch liber alIen Zerstreuungen der Geschlechter und des Glaubens" 64), but also in the "AufkHinmg". It remains unclear on quite a few points 65. As far as the different phases of the epistemological process is concerned, Averroes reputes Avicenna's innovation: the vis estimativa, as being unaristotelian, and returns to the traditional three levels: senses, imagination and cognition. As far as the actual abstraction process is concerned, one can distinguish the following elements with Avicenna. 1. The intelligible fonns (intentiones in the Latin translation) are present in aptitude and in imaginative capacity, that is, in the sensory images which are present there; 2. The fonns are actualised by the working of the Active Intellect (the lowest celestial sphere), that works in analogy to light ; 3. The intelligible fonns-in-act are "received" by the "possible" or the "material intellecf', which thereby changes into intellect-in-act, also called: habitual or acquired intellect: the. perfect form ofwhich - when all scientific knowledge that can be acquired, has been acquired -is called speculative intellect. 4. According to the Aristotelian principle that the epistemological process and knowing itselfcoincide, the state ofintellect-in-act implies - certainly as speculative intellect - the conjunction with the Active Intellect. 64 Cited by Ernst Bloch, Avicenna und die Aristotelische Linke, (1953), in Suhrkamp, Gesamtausgabe, 7, p.
    [Show full text]
  • The Toulmin Model Meets Critical Rhetoric
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 6 Jun 1st, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Induction and Invention: The Toulmin Model Meets Critical Rhetoric Satoru Aonuma Kanda University of International Studies Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Aonuma, Satoru, "Induction and Invention: The Toulmin Model Meets Critical Rhetoric" (2005). OSSA Conference Archive. 2. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA6/papers/2 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Induction and Invention: The Toulmin Model Meets Critical Rhetoric SATORU AONUMA Department of International Communication Kanda University of International Studies 1-4-1 Wakaba, Mihama Chiba 261-0014 JAPAN [email protected] ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper is to (re)articulate the relationship between "critical rhetoric" and Stephen Toulmin's conception of practical reasoning. Among students of rhetoric, particularly those who work in communication departments in (US) American universities, the project of reason, once cherished as central to the 20th century Renaissance of argument, seems to have become outdated and irrelevant. With the recent “critical turn,” reason was especially given a bad name in the field of rhetoric. Some rhetoricians have even joined reason’s Other, dissociating themselves from the project of reason as much as possible. The paper contends that the difference between critical reasoners and rhetoricians is not so substantial as it may look.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconceiving Curriculum: an Historical Approach Stephen Shepard Triche Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2002 Reconceiving curriculum: an historical approach Stephen Shepard Triche Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Triche, Stephen Shepard, "Reconceiving curriculum: an historical approach" (2002). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 495. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/495 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. RECONCEIVING CURRICULUM: AN HISTORICAL APPROACH A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In The Department of Curriculum and Instruction by Stephen S. Triche B.A., Louisiana State University, 1979 M.A.. Louisiana State University, 1991 August 2002 To my family for their love and support over the years as I pursue this dream and to the memory of my father. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The process of researching and writing this dissertation has brought many teachers into my life—those special people who have given me their time and unique talents. First, and foremost, I wish to thank Dr. William Doll for his unwavering confidence and determination to bring out the best that I could give. Without his wisdom and support this project could not have been accomplished.
    [Show full text]
  • Beardsley's Theory of Analogy
    INFORMAL LOGIC XI.3, Fall 1989 Beardsley's Theory of Analogy EVELYN M. BARKER The University of Maryland 1. Is the Argument from Analogy a consequences of an "abdication of Fallacy? statesmanship."2 Kissinger cites historical analogy as the only basis for sound judg­ In the various editions of Practical Logic ment in international diplomacy: and Thinking Straight Monroe Beardsley History is the only experience on which pioneered informal logic, the assessment of statesmen can draw. But it does not teach reasoning techniques employed in actual its lessons automatically. It demonstrates the human situations. 1 Although acknowledg­ consequences of comparable situations, but ing the prominence of analogies in reason­ each generation has to determine what situa­ ing, he contended that analogy has some tions are in fact comparable. heuristic uses, but an argument based on one Such analogical arguments, as Kissinger is inherently fallacious: points out, are directed to finding suitable Analogies illustrate, and they lead to premises for wise and prudent action. hypotheses, but thinking in terms of analogy Beardsley's intellectualist approach limits becomes fallacious when the analogy is us­ rational argumentation to asserting premises ed as a reason for a principle. This fallacy as evidence for the truth of a conclusion. is called the "argument from analogy." Consequently he overlooks or misconceives (PL 107) the character of some forms of analogical Beardsley's view implies that no serious argument prevalent in practical reasoning. reasoner will use analogies between things It is misleading to speak of "the argument in drawing conclusions, or be persuaded by from analogy," as Beardsley does, as if all another's introduction of them.
    [Show full text]
  • Contributing to a Better Understanding of the Contemporary Debate
    ABCD springer.com Contributing to a better understanding of the contemporary debate A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence S 6–8 VOLUME Editor-in-Chief: Enrico Pattaro, CIRSFID and Law Faculty, University of Bologna, Italy Now Available! The fi rst ever multivolume treatment of the issues in legal philosophy and general jurisprudence, from both a theoretical and a historical perspective. A classical reference work that would be of great interest to legal and practical philosophers, as well as jurists and Philosophy of Law-scholar at all levels The entire work is divided into three parts: The Theoretical part (published in 2005) consists of 5 volumes and covers the main topics of contemporary debate. The Historical part consists of 6 volumes and is scheduled to be published during 2006 (volumes 6-8) and 2007 (volumes 9-11) and volume 12 (index). The historical volumes account for the development of legal thought from ancient Greek times through the twentieth century. Vol. 6: A History of the Philosophy of Law from the Ancient Greeks to the Scholastics – 3 Fred D. Miller Jr. E VOLUM Vol. 7: The Jurists’ Philosophy of Law from Rome to the Seventeenth Century – SET Andrea Padovani & Peter Stein Vol. 8: A History of the Philosophy of Law from the Seventeenth Century to 1900 in the Common-Law Tradition – Diethelm Klippel 2006, 1.090 p. (3 volume set), Harcover ISBN 1-4020-4950-1 € 399,00 | £307.00 | $535.00 Easy Ways to Order for the Americas Write: Springer Order Department, PO Box 2485, Secaucus, NJ 07096-2485, USA Call: (toll free) 1-800-SPRINGER Fax: +1(201)348-4505 Email: [email protected] or for outside the Americas Write: Springer Distribution Center GmbH, Haberstrasse 7, 69126 Heidelberg, Germany Call: +49 (0) 6221-345-4301 Fax : +49 (0) 6221-345-4229 Email: [email protected] Prices are subject to change without notice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Argument Form “Appeal to Galileo”: a Critical Appreciation of Doury's Account
    The Argument Form “Appeal to Galileo”: A Critical Appreciation of Doury’s Account MAURICE A. FINOCCHIARO Department of Philosophy University of Nevada, Las Vegas Las Vegas, NV 89154-5028 USA [email protected] Abstract: Following a linguistic- Résumé: En poursuivant une ap- descriptivist approach, Marianne proche linguistique-descriptiviste, Doury has studied debates about Marianne Doury a étudié les débats “parasciences” (e.g. astrology), dis- sur les «parasciences » (par exem- covering that “parascientists” fre- ple, l'astrologie), et a découvert que quently argue by “appeal to Galileo” les «parasavants» raisonnent souvent (i.e., defend their views by compar- en faisant un «appel à Galilée" (c.-à- ing themselves to Galileo and their d. ils défendent leurs points de vue opponents to the Inquisition); oppo- en se comparant à Galileo et en nents object by criticizing the analo- comparant leurs adversaires aux gy, charging fallacy, and appealing juges de l’Inquisition). Les adver- to counter-examples. I argue that saires des parasavant critiquent Galilean appeals are much more l'analogie en la qualifiant de soph- widely used, by creationists, global- isme, et en construisant des contre- warming skeptics, advocates of “set- exemples. Je soutiens que les appels tled science”, great scientists, and à Galilée sont beaucoup plus large- great philosophers. Moreover, sever- ment utilisés, par des créationnistes, al subtypes should be distinguished; des sceptiques du réchauffement critiques questioning the analogy are planétaire, des défenseurs de la «sci- proper; fallacy charges are problem- ence établie», des grands scien- atic; and appeals to counter- tifiques, et des grands philosophes. examples are really indirect critiques En outre, on doit distinguer plusieurs of the analogy.
    [Show full text]
  • Circles and Analogies in Public Health Reasoning Louise Cummings
    SUMMER 2014, VOL. 29, NO. 2 35 Circles and Analogies in Public Health Reasoning Louise Cummings School of Arts and Humanities Nottingham Trent University, UK Abstract 7KHVWXG\RIWKHIDOODFLHVKDVFKDQJHGDOPRVWEH\RQGUHFRJQLWLRQVLQFH&KDUOHV+DPEOLQFDOOHG IRUDUDGLFDOUHDSSUDLVDORIWKLVDUHDRIORJLFDOLQTXLU\LQKLVERRN)DOODFLHV7KH³ZLWOHVV H[DPSOHVRIKLVIRUEHDUV´WRZKLFK+DPEOLQUHIHUUHGKDYHODUJHO\EHHQUHSODFHGE\PRUH authentic cases of the fallacies in actual use. It is now not unusual for fallacy and argumentation theorists to draw on actual sources for examples of how the fallacies are used in our everyday UHDVRQLQJ+RZHYHUDQDVSHFWRIWKLVPRYHWRZDUGVJUHDWHUDXWKHQWLFLW\LQWKHVWXG\RIWKH fallacies, an aspect which has been almost universally neglected, is the attempt to subject the fallacies to empirical testing of the type which is more commonly associated with psychological experiments on reasoning. This paper addresses this omission in research on the fallacies by examining how subjects use two fallacies – circular argument and analogical argument – during a reasoning task in which subjects are required to consider a number of public health scenarios. Results are discussed in relation to a view of the fallacies as cognitive heuristics that facilitate reasoning in a context of uncertainty. Keywords: analogical argument, circular argument, heuristic, informal fallacy, public health, reasoning, uncertainty I. Introduction puns, anecdotes, and witless examples of his forbears. The study of the fallacies has changed :KHUHSKLORVRSKLFDOUHÀHFWLRQRQWKH considerably in
    [Show full text]
  • The Status in 1980 of the Toulmin Model of Argument in the Area of Speech Communication
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1980 The status in 1980 of the Toulmin model of argument in the area of speech communication Jeffrey Robert Sweeney Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Intellectual History Commons, Speech and Hearing Science Commons, and the Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Sweeney, Jeffrey Robert, "The status in 1980 of the Toulmin model of argument in the area of speech communication" (1980). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 3164. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.3155 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Jeffrey Robert Sweeney for the Master of Science in Speech Communication presented November 17, 1980. Title: The Status in 1980 of the Toulmin Model of Argument in the Area of Speech Communication. APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COM1'1ITTEE: Francis P. Gibson, Chairman Rupert ~- ~ucnanan In 1958 Stephen E. Toulmin wrote of inadequacies of formal logic and proposed a new field-dependent approach to the analysis of arguments. Despite a generally negative response to his proposal from formal logicians, Toulmin's model for the laying out of arguments for analysis was 2 subsequently appropriated by several speech communication textbook writers. In some textbooks, the Toulmin model has become successor to the syllogism as the paradigm of logi­ cal argument.
    [Show full text]
  • “Historical Turn”: Stephen Toulmin and Thomas Kuhn
    Open Journal of Philosophy 2013. Vol.3, No.2, 351-357 Published Online May 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojpp) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2013.32053 Scientific Prediction in the Beginning of the “Historical Turn”: Stephen Toulmin and Thomas Kuhn Wenceslao J. Gonzalez Department of Humanities, University of A Coruña, Spain Email: [email protected] Received January 14th, 2013; revised February 17th, 2013; accepted March 2nd, 2013 Copyright © 2013 Wenceslao J. Gonzalez. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Com- mons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, pro- vided the original work is properly cited. This paper considers the similarities and differences between Toulmin and Kuhn on the problem of pre- diction. The context of the analysis is the beginning of the “historical turn” in philosophy of science (i.e., the period before the 1965 international colloquium held at Bedford College). The comparison between these authors takes into account several levels: semantic, logical, epistemological, methodological, onto- logical, and axiological. The main goal is to analyze whether there are influences of Toulmin in Kuhn re- garding scientific prediction or, at least, if the former reached similar positions to the latter on the issue of the role of prediction in science. Keywords: Toulmin; Kuhn; Scientific Prediction; Historical Turn; Similarities; Differences Historical Context the role of prediction as a guarantee of the validity of scientific knowledge. (v) Ontologically, they see science as a human The “historical turn” in the philosophy and methodology of activity rather than as an abstract amount of impersonal science is commonly attributed to Thomas Kuhn and Imre La- knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • The Toulmin Model a Tool for Diagramming “Informal” Arguments
    1 The Toulmin Model A tool for diagramming “informal” arguments 2 Stephen Toulmin •Stephen Toulmin, originally a British logician, is now a professor at USC. He became frustrated with the inability of formal logic to explain everyday arguments, which prompted him to develop his own model of practical reasoning. 3 Toulmin cont. .Toulmin has taught at the University of Southern California since 1993, giving the Jefferson Lecture for the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1997. .In 1958, Toulmin offered a theory of argument that differed from the classical, Platonic absolutism, which was part of Plato’s formal logic. Toulmin believed that some aspects of rhetoric were relative and not rigidly absolute. 4 Toulmin’s Model .Toulmin’s model provides that there are three essential aspects to rhetorical argument: . 5 Toulmin’s Model, cont. •Simply: •A Claim is made. •Data is provided in the form of supporting facts. •The Warrant connects the Data to the Claim. •For example: 6 Toulmin’s Model cont. •“I am an American.” (Claim) •“I was born in Texas.” (Data) •Anyone born in Texas is a legal American citizen. (Warrant) • •Toulmin says that the Claim and the Data cannot hold without a sufficiently strong Warrant , or, the weakest argument is the one with the weakest warrant. • 7 The three basic elements: •Claim (assertion or proposition) •Data (proof, grounds, support) •Warrant (inferential leap) 8 Claims •A claim is the point an arguer is trying to make. The claim is the conclusion, proposition, or assertion an arguer wants another to accept. •The claim answers the question, "So what is your point?” •example: “Lynne is an American citizen, because she was born in the United States.” 1 •example: “Barack Obama doesn’t wear a flag pin on his lapel, so he must not be patriotic.” • 9 More about claims..
    [Show full text]
  • Wittgenstein's
    Chapter 1 Wittgenstein’s “Language-Games” In my view the key idea of the later Wittgenstein’s revolutionary approach to the philosophy of language is that of language-games. His idea was that lin- guistic meaning is a function of the ways human beings communicate and in- teract by means their embodied participation in highly flexible, open-ended social activities which he labelled language-games. It has been said that he initially conceived of this metaphor for human linguistic activity while passing by a soccer match in Cambridge. Be that as it may, Wittgenstein did develop an understanding of human language which focuses on the give and take of linguistic activity within standard moves and patterns, on the one hand, and creative innovations, on the other. It is with the unique character of this notion that we must begin our explora- tion of Wittgenstein’s understanding of language. In his earlier work, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Wittgenstein understood the nature of linguistic mean- ing as parallel to the tracking of logical equations and the picturing of material facts. These facts were viewed as constructed out of and described by “atomic and molecular” parts which go together, much like Lego-blocks, to form the facts of the world. In turn, these facts can be described by corresponding atom- ic and molecular propositions that parallel them in a one-to-one manner. This static, exhaustive “picture theory” of both reality and language was re- ferred to by Bertrand Russell, who along with Wittgenstein, subscribed to it, as “logical atomism.” Once one has understood the world and language in this way, there is nothing left to say or do.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument
    The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument <http://www.orsinger.com/PDFFiles/constructing-a-persuasive-argument.pdf> [The pdf version of this document is web-enabled with linking endnotes] Richard R. Orsinger [email protected] http://www.orsinger.com McCurley, Orsinger, McCurley, Nelson & Downing, L.L.P. San Antonio Office: 1717 Tower Life Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 (210) 225-5567 http://www.orsinger.com and Dallas Office: 5950 Sherry Lane, Suite 800 Dallas, Texas 75225 (214) 273-2400 http://www.momnd.com State Bar of Texas 37th ANNUAL ADVANCED FAMILY LAW COURSE August 1-4, 2011 San Antonio CHAPTER 11 © 2011 Richard R. Orsinger All Rights Reserved The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument Chapter 11 Table of Contents I. THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSUASION.. 1 II. PERSUASION IN ARGUMENTATION.. 1 III. BACKGROUND.. 2 IV. USER’S GUIDE FOR THIS ARTICLE.. 2 V. ARISTOTLE’S THREE COMPONENTS OF A PERSUASIVE SPEECH.. 3 A. ETHOS.. 3 B. PATHOS.. 4 C. LOGOS.. 4 1. Syllogism.. 4 2. Implication.. 4 3. Enthymeme.. 4 (a) Advantages and Disadvantages of Commonplaces... 5 (b) Selection of Commonplaces.. 5 VI. ARGUMENT MODELS (OVERVIEW)... 5 A. LOGIC-BASED ARGUMENTS. 5 1. Deductive Logic.. 5 2. Inductive Logic.. 6 3. Reasoning by Analogy.. 7 B. DEFEASIBLE ARGUMENTS... 7 C. THE TOULMIN ARGUMENTATION MODEL... 7 D. FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS.. 8 E. ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES.. 8 VII. LOGICAL REASONING (DETAILED ANALYSIS).. 8 A. DEDUCTIVE REASONING.. 8 1. The Categorical Syllogism... 8 a. Graphically Depicting the Simple Categorical Syllogism... 9 b. A Legal Dispute as a Simple Syllogism.. 9 c.
    [Show full text]