Argumentation Theory of Stephen E. Toulmin

    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?

    Quote

    Toulmin model of argument

    This section is transcluded from Stephen Toulmin.

    330px-Toulmin_Argumentation_Example.gif 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:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory

    And here is another good site:

    Toulmin Argument // Purdue Writing Lab
    The Purdue University Online Writing Lab serves writers from around the world and the Purdue University Writing Lab helps writers on Purdue's campus.
    owl.purdue.edu

    I am rushed for time so I will have to read the article later. I presume we will eventually want to move this to the Canonics section, but I am not able in a few seconds to figure out his point. Is there a way to briefly summarize why this looks like it could be relevant to Epicurean reasoning? By no means am I saying it's not, I am just not quickly grasping the major idea of his suggestion(?) Is this related to probability vs "certainty"?


    Is this the essential point?

    Quote

    Including a qualifier or a rebuttal in an argument helps build your ethos, or credibility. When you acknowledge that your view isn’t always true or when you provide multiple views of a situation, you build an image of a careful, unbiased thinker, rather than of someone blindly pushing for a single interpretation of the situation.

    At least from the chart in the Wikipedia link, it appears that the initial propositions are facts and conclusions are derived from there. That's what I was referring to, although I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing either.

    As we bring in the application of Epicurean principles into daily life, we may need to more effectively base ideas both on specific principles AND on observable sensations, so that we can use the philosophy effectively.

    Also it can help everyone here on the forum present their ideas more clearly.

    More on using the Toulmin model:

    1) The claim, the first element in an argument, is an assertion, thesis or propostion and answers the question: "What do I want to prove?"

    2) The grounds, the second element in an argument, are evidence, specific facts or data that support the claim and answer the question: "What do I have to go on?"

    3) The warrant, the third element in an argument, yields general support that links the grounds to the claim -- either implied or stated, depending on the audience -- and answers the question: "How do I get from evidence to claim?"

    Then further:

    4) Is it necessary to add "Backing" ? -- Backing is an additional factor considered very important to the claim. "Is the move from grounds to claim safe and reliable?"

    5) Is it necessary to add a "Rebuttal" ? A rebuttal is an exception that might make the claim invalid. "What possibilities might upset the argument? (This might add a new starting point, or claim).

    6) Is "Qualification" necessary? With what level of certainty will the evidence be found to effectively support the claim? (adding in words such as "likely", etc.)

    Based on this PDF:

    https://www.google.com/url?q=https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/teachingwriting/article/viewFile/821/810&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjTxbH5t-L1AhX7JDQIHYxACx4QFnoECAkQAg&usg=AOvVaw2Xx3fWmBzQ2EGG0LFq0tnR