Toulmin, Stephen "The Layout of Arguments" - Revision history

Katie T. at 02:28, 17 April 2012

2012-04-17T02:28:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:28, 17 April 2012
Line 12:		Line 12:

	Toulmin identifies three types or warrants: authoritative (based on ethos), motivational (based on pathos), and substantive (based on logos).		Toulmin identifies three types or warrants: authoritative (based on ethos), motivational (based on pathos), and substantive (based on logos).
		+
		+	== Glossary Terms ==
		+
		+	The following key terms are defined in the [[Glossary]]: backing, casuistry, modal qualifiers, monotonic reasoning, non-monotonic reasoning, warrant

	== Notable Quotes ==		== Notable Quotes ==

Katie T. at 01:49, 17 April 2012

2012-04-17T01:49:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:49, 17 April 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	In “The Layout of Arguments,” [[Stephen Toulmin]]’s thesis is that a new framework is needed for argumentation, as an alternative to the syllogism. The framework (or layout) he proposes involves five main components:		In “The Layout of Arguments,” [[Stephen Toulmin]]’s thesis is that a new framework is needed for argumentation, as an alternative to the syllogism. The framework (or layout) he proposes involves five main components:
		+
		+	[[File:Toulmin.jpeg\|thumb]]
	* A '''claim'''		* A '''claim'''
	* '''Data''' supporting the claim and from which the claim can be inferred		* '''Data''' supporting the claim and from which the claim can be inferred
Line 7:		Line 9:
	*'''Rebuttal'''		*'''Rebuttal'''

-	Toulmin ~~claims that the syllogism~~ is ~~too ambiguous~~ because, for ~~instance,~~ universal premises (such as “All men are mortal”) do not properly distinguish between warrant and backing. Additionally, with a syllogism one cannot always tell whether a universal premise is true only in theory or in existential, empirical fact. Toulmin explains that logicians have too long relied on the syllogism and that in doing so they have forced arguments into a mold that doesn’t take into account subtle distinctions.	+	Toulmin's argument is particularly unique because of its attention to the warrant, which is often taken for granted. Toulmin criticizes the syllogism because universal premises such as “All men are mortal” do not properly distinguish between warrant and backing. Additionally, with a syllogism one cannot always tell whether a universal premise is true only in theory or in existential, empirical fact. Toulmin explains that logicians have too long relied on the syllogism and that in doing so they have forced arguments into a mold that doesn’t take into account subtle distinctions.
		+
		+	Toulmin identifies three types or warrants: authoritative (based on ethos), motivational (based on pathos), and substantive (based on logos).

	== Notable Quotes ==		== Notable Quotes ==

Katie T. at 19:52, 15 April 2012

2012-04-15T19:52:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:52, 15 April 2012
Line 20:		Line 20:

	* "Even the most general warrants in ethical arguments are yet liable in unusual situations to suffer exceptions, and so at strongest can authorize only presumptive conclusions" (125).		* "Even the most general warrants in ethical arguments are yet liable in unusual situations to suffer exceptions, and so at strongest can authorize only presumptive conclusions" (125).
-
-	~~== Key Terms ==~~
-
-	~~[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Glossary#S Syllogism]~~
-
-	~~[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Glossary#W Warrant]~~
-
-	~~[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Glossary#B Backing]~~
-
-	~~[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Glossary#D Datum]~~
-
-	~~[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Glossary#M Modal Qualifiers]~~

Katie T. at 03:28, 16 February 2012

2012-02-16T03:28:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:28, 16 February 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	In “The Layout of Arguments,” [[Stephen Toulmin]]’s thesis is that a new framework is needed for argumentation, as an alternative to the syllogism. The framework (or layout) he proposes involves a claim ~~made due to some data, a~~ warrant (often implicit~~) given to support~~ the inference of the claim from the data, ~~possibly~~ a ~~qualification added to the claim along with conditions~~ of ~~exception~~, ~~and backing supplied~~ to ~~provide sufficient grounds for a warrant.~~ Toulmin claims that the syllogism is too ambiguous because, for instance, universal premises (such as “All men are mortal”) do not properly distinguish between warrant and backing. Additionally, with a syllogism one cannot always tell whether a universal premise is true only in theory or in existential, empirical fact. Toulmin explains that logicians have too long relied on the syllogism and that in doing so they have forced arguments into a mold that doesn’t take into account subtle distinctions.	+	In “The Layout of Arguments,” [[Stephen Toulmin]]’s thesis is that a new framework is needed for argumentation, as an alternative to the syllogism. The framework (or layout) he proposes involves five main components:
		+	* A '''claim'''
		+	* '''Data''' supporting the claim and from which the claim can be inferred
		+	* A '''warrant''', an often implicit assumption that supports the inference of the claim from the data
		+	** A warrant is often supported by a '''backer,''' a fact or set of facts that support the warrant
		+	* '''Qualifications''', conditions under which there may be exceptions to the claim
		+	*'''Rebuttal'''
		+
		+	Toulmin claims that the syllogism is too ambiguous because, for instance, universal premises (such as “All men are mortal”) do not properly distinguish between warrant and backing. Additionally, with a syllogism one cannot always tell whether a universal premise is true only in theory or in existential, empirical fact. Toulmin explains that logicians have too long relied on the syllogism and that in doing so they have forced arguments into a mold that doesn’t take into account subtle distinctions.

	== Notable Quotes ==		== Notable Quotes ==

Chelsea: /* Key Terms */

2011-05-08T19:46:36Z

Key Terms

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:46, 8 May 2011
Line 17:		Line 17:
	[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Glossary#S Syllogism]		[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Glossary#S Syllogism]

-	Warrant	+	[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Glossary#W Warrant]

-	Backing	+	[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Glossary#B Backing]

-	Datum	+	[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Glossary#D Datum]

-	Modal Qualifiers	+	[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Glossary#M Modal Qualifiers]

RachelM at 18:36, 10 April 2011

2011-04-10T18:36:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:36, 10 April 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	In “The Layout of Arguments,” [[Stephen Toulmin]]’s thesis is that a new framework is needed for argumentation, as an alternative to the syllogism. The framework (or layout) he proposes involves a claim made due to some data, a warrant (often implicit) given to support the inference of the claim from the data, possibly a qualification added to the claim along with conditions of exception, and backing supplied to provide sufficient grounds for a warrant. Toulmin claims that the syllogism is too ambiguous because, for instance, universal premises (such as “All men are mortal”) do not properly distinguish between warrant and backing. Additionally, with a syllogism one cannot always tell whether a universal premise is true only in theory or in existential, empirical fact. Toulmin explains that logicians have too long relied on the syllogism and that in doing so they have forced arguments into a mold that doesn’t take into account subtle distinctions.		In “The Layout of Arguments,” [[Stephen Toulmin]]’s thesis is that a new framework is needed for argumentation, as an alternative to the syllogism. The framework (or layout) he proposes involves a claim made due to some data, a warrant (often implicit) given to support the inference of the claim from the data, possibly a qualification added to the claim along with conditions of exception, and backing supplied to provide sufficient grounds for a warrant. Toulmin claims that the syllogism is too ambiguous because, for instance, universal premises (such as “All men are mortal”) do not properly distinguish between warrant and backing. Additionally, with a syllogism one cannot always tell whether a universal premise is true only in theory or in existential, empirical fact. Toulmin explains that logicians have too long relied on the syllogism and that in doing so they have forced arguments into a mold that doesn’t take into account subtle distinctions.

		+	== Notable Quotes ==
		+
		+	*"It is at this physiological level that the idea of logical form has been introduced, and here that the validity of our arguments has ultimately to be established or refuted" (105).
		+
		+	*"The existence of considerations such as would establish the acceptability of the most reliable warrants is something we are entitled to take for granted" (115).
		+
		+	*"No entirely general answer can be given to the question, for what determines whether there are or are not existential implications in any particular case is not the form of statement itself, but rather the practical use to which this form is put on that occasion" (123).
		+
		+	*"If we are to set our arguments out with complete logical candor, and understand properly the nature of the 'the logical process,' surely we shall need to emply a pattern of argument no less sophisticated than is required by law" (107).
		+
		+	* "Even the most general warrants in ethical arguments are yet liable in unusual situations to suffer exceptions, and so at strongest can authorize only presumptive conclusions" (125).

	== Key Terms ==		== Key Terms ==

RachelM at 18:33, 10 April 2011

2011-04-10T18:33:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:33, 10 April 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	In “The Layout of Arguments,” [[Stephen Toulmin]]’s thesis is that a new framework is needed for argumentation, as an alternative to the syllogism. The framework (or layout) he proposes involves a claim made due to some data, a warrant (often implicit) given to support the inference of the claim from the data, possibly a qualification added to the claim along with conditions of exception, and backing supplied to provide sufficient grounds for a warrant. Toulmin claims that the syllogism is too ambiguous because, for instance, universal premises (such as “All men are mortal”) do not properly distinguish between warrant and backing. Additionally, with a syllogism one cannot always tell whether a universal premise is true only in theory or in existential, empirical fact. Toulmin explains that logicians have too long relied on the syllogism and that in doing so they have forced arguments into a mold that doesn’t take into account subtle distinctions.		In “The Layout of Arguments,” [[Stephen Toulmin]]’s thesis is that a new framework is needed for argumentation, as an alternative to the syllogism. The framework (or layout) he proposes involves a claim made due to some data, a warrant (often implicit) given to support the inference of the claim from the data, possibly a qualification added to the claim along with conditions of exception, and backing supplied to provide sufficient grounds for a warrant. Toulmin claims that the syllogism is too ambiguous because, for instance, universal premises (such as “All men are mortal”) do not properly distinguish between warrant and backing. Additionally, with a syllogism one cannot always tell whether a universal premise is true only in theory or in existential, empirical fact. Toulmin explains that logicians have too long relied on the syllogism and that in doing so they have forced arguments into a mold that doesn’t take into account subtle distinctions.
		+
		+
		+	== Key Terms ==
		+
		+	[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Glossary#S Syllogism]
		+
		+	Warrant
		+
		+	Backing
		+
		+	Datum
		+
		+	Modal Qualifiers

Kelli: Created page with "In “The Layout of Arguments,” Stephen Toulmin’s thesis is that a new framework is needed for argumentation, as an alternative to the syllogism. The framework (or layout..."

2011-04-09T01:05:15Z

Created page with "In “The Layout of Arguments,” Stephen Toulmin’s thesis is that a new framework is needed for argumentation, as an alternative to the syllogism. The framework (or layout..."

New page

In “The Layout of Arguments,” [[Stephen Toulmin]]’s thesis is that a new framework is needed for argumentation, as an alternative to the syllogism. The framework (or layout) he proposes involves a claim made due to some data, a warrant (often implicit) given to support the inference of the claim from the data, possibly a qualification added to the claim along with conditions of exception, and backing supplied to provide sufficient grounds for a warrant. Toulmin claims that the syllogism is too ambiguous because, for instance, universal premises (such as “All men are mortal”) do not properly distinguish between warrant and backing. Additionally, with a syllogism one cannot always tell whether a universal premise is true only in theory or in existential, empirical fact. Toulmin explains that logicians have too long relied on the syllogism and that in doing so they have forced arguments into a mold that doesn’t take into account subtle distinctions.