Stephen Toulminnow a professor at USC's Annenberg SchoolToulmin's theory of argument arises out of a need to explain how everyday argument, or "marketplace" argument operates. Toulmin's generation operated under the legacy of "Cartesian logic," e.g., the logical system established by Descartes (of "I think therefore I am" fame). Cartesian logic maintains that there are certain immutable truths, or absolutes (a legacy from Plato's era)Toulmin recognized that Cartesian logic, and other formal logical systems, were inadequate for explaining how practical reasoning functioned. Everyday arguments can't be cast into syllogistic form; they would always be invalid. Example: inferences about Clinton and Monica Lewinsky Example: inferences about JonBenet Ramsey's death Example: inferences about the stock market, the FRB, and interest rates Syllogistic reasoning is unsuited for inference-making. Since the conclusions are "entailed" or contained in the premises, one can't learn anything new. Example: All pit bulls are vicious Biff's dog is a pit bull Biff's dog is vicious In formal logic, the truth of the premises is presumed, it is a given. In real life truth of a premise may be exactly what is at issue. Example: Substances with legitimate medicinal value should be legalized Marijuana has legitimate medicinal value Marijuana should be legalized In a categorical syllogism at least one of the premises must be universal (e.g., a distributed middle term). In real life, all the premises or asumptions may be qualified Example: Some pit bulls are vicious Biff's dog is part pit bull Biff's dog might be vicious (For a review of the requirements of a valid syllogism, see Reinard's text, or any logic text). You don't need to know formal logic for this class. In sum, formal logic doesn't describe how people really reason on a day to day basis, nor how they come to know things. At the same time, Toulmin opposed the opposite point of view which was complete relativism. We can't know anything, nothing is right or wrong, all positions are equally correct. Example: cultural relativism vs. universal human rights on issue such as child labor, infanticide, female genital mutiliation, etc. Is "feminism" inherently ethnocentric because it embodies western, european notions of women's rights?A completely relativistic view, precludes evaluating some arguments as stronger/ weaker, better/worse than others. Example: using magic or witchcraft to heal a sick person versus penicillin or some other prescription medicineRecognition of differences between field-invriant and field-dependent argument is one of Toulmin's major contributions Toulmin felt formal logic didn't reflect the ways in which arguments differed from one field or context to the next. Arguments possess unique features, characteristics based upon the field in which they occur Example: law as a specialized field of argument: burden of proof, evidentiary standards, due process guarantees, reliance on stare decisis, etc.what constitutes proof varies from field to field how arguments are advanced or formulated varies from field to field standards and criteria for evaluating arguments vary from field to field Example: criminal law uses the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Example: social science research uses the p < .05 level of significance Example: business arguments are evaluated according to the "bottom line" Language and Argument Utterances lie along a spectrum or continuum: from instrumental to argumentative Instrumental language: commands, orders, directives; which are intended to achieve their effects directly, without additional explanation. A command does not have to be proved. Example: "Biff, take your break now." "Babbs, hand me that wrench." Argumentative language: utterances that succeed or fail based on the reasons and evidence offered. Whether the receiver agrees or complies with the message depends on the reasons offered. Example: "The Dodgers will win the pennant this year. They've been playing well ever since the all-star break."Toulmin's model of argument--his most well-known contribution. Based on a primary triad elements; claim grounds, warrant. |