A few days ago, I came across the argumentation theory of Toulmin, and it seems it might be useful...and much easier than formal logic. "Argumentation" here on the forum is all new to me (and for the record, I haven't put in very much study of formal logic).
Toulmin argumentation theory could have compatibility within Epicureanism. Also since we often need to come to a deeper application of Epicureanism based on Principle Doctrines and other writings, this might be a method of drawing conclusions in order to apply Epicureanism to modern life situations.
I am curious to know what others think of this?
QuoteToulmin model of argument
This section is transcluded from Stephen Toulmin.
Toulmin argumentation can be diagrammed as a conclusion established, more or less, on the basis of a fact supported by a warrant (with backing), and a possible rebuttal.
Arguing that absolutism lacks practical value, Toulmin aimed to develop a different type of argument, called practical arguments (also known as substantial arguments). In contrast to absolutists' theoretical arguments, Toulmin's practical argument is intended to focus on the justificatory function of argumentation, as opposed to the inferential function of theoretical arguments. Whereas theoretical arguments make inferences based on a set of principles to arrive at a claim, practical arguments first find a claim of interest, and then provide justification for it. Toulmin believed that reasoning is less an activity of inference, involving the discovering of new ideas, and more a process of testing and sifting already existing ideas—an act achievable through the process of justification.
Toulmin believed that for a good argument to succeed, it needs to provide good justification for a claim. This, he believed, will ensure it stands up to criticism and earns a favourable verdict. In The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin proposed a layout containing six interrelated components for analyzing arguments:
And here is another good site: