Toulmin, Stephen "The Layout of Arguments"

From RhetorClick

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(4 intermediate revisions not shown)
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:
 +
 
 +
[[File:Toulmin.jpeg|thumb]]
 +
* 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'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).
 +
 
 +
== 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 ==
Line 12: Line 28:
* "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]
 
-
 
-
Warrant
 
-
 
-
Backing
 
-
 
-
Datum
 
-
 
-
Modal Qualifiers
 

Latest revision as of 02:28, 17 April 2012

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:

Toulmin.jpeg

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).

Glossary Terms

The following key terms are defined in the Glossary: backing, casuistry, modal qualifiers, monotonic reasoning, non-monotonic reasoning, warrant

Notable Quotes

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Site Navigation
Wiki Help
Toolbox