Toulmin Model
Stephen Toulmin
British philosopher, 1922-2009
-Studied the logic and origins of human ethics/morality
-Rejected both moral absolutism (as advocated by Plato – absolute truth and unalterable virtues, though Plato suggested that these cannot be known by humans) and relativism (post-modern idea that there can be no truth and all morals are just false constructs – ironically one could argue that this was Socrates' true position)
-Promoted reason, compromise, humanism – argued that we need to be practical and realistic about the way we live, think, argue
-Developed a model of practical argumentation (or rhetoric) to suit this purpose
Six parts to any argument:
- Claim, Grounds, Warrant, Backing, Rebuttal, Qualifier
Useful to both producing and critically-analyzing arguments
1. Claim
The conclusion to be proven, aka the thesis
The “what” of an argument – what are you trying to say?
– e.g. “We don't know what Socrates really thought.”
2. Grounds
Evidence, data, or primary argument supporting this claim
Facts – not always 100% reliable, but can be argued logically (logos!) to defend a claim as sufficiently convincing or scientifically supportable
The “how” of an argument – how do you know that your claim is true?
– e.g. “...because we only know about Socrates from others' writing, primarily Plato's”
3. Warrant
The link between a claim and its grounds – should be made clearly, whether explicitly or implicitly
Can be provided using ethos, pathos or logos, but ideally should incorporate all three – cover all fronts!
The “why” of an argument – why do your grounds prove/support your claim?
– e.g. “...because memory is not perfect and everyone – including Plato – has their own bias and philosophy”
4. Backing
Additional information and credentials which extends your grounds and warrant
Should enhance your claim's credibility (ethos!), provide an alternative but also sensible logic (logos!), and serve to back up your warrant
Any claim, grounds or warrant has more than one possible angle to it – backing is a reminder to explore some of the other ones that can help your argument
The “also” of an argument
– e.g. “...also because Socrates was distrustful of writing and did not like others speaking on his behalf, which is why he refused to write down anything he said”
5. Rebuttal
The opposite or antithesis that needs to be recognized
Restrictions or limits of an argument need to be acknowledged
Talking about views that oppose yours does not necessarily weaken your argument, and if you do it effectively, in fact strengthens it significantly (by building your ethos as someone who is ethical and informed enough to know all sides of an issue, and confident enough to tackle opposition effectively and respectfully)
Any claim comes with alternatives – there are always other angles, and a rebuttal is a reminder to address these
The “negative” of an argument
– e.g. “...however what Plato tells about Socrates is largely consistent with what is told by other contemporaries, and shows great respect for Socrates, suggesting that there is at least a great overlap between Plato's and Socrates' thinking”
6. Qualifier
The degree of certainty or force with which a claim is argued
The strength of the rebuttal will often naturally lead here
Restate or conclude your claims, starting with words ranging from “perhaps” or “possibly” to “likely” or “certainly”
Should be determined logically by the strength of grounds, warrants, backing, and rebuttals
Be careful not to claim more than you can justify!
The “degree” of an argument
– e.g. “...therefore we will certainly never know what Socrates really thought, but it is likely that Plato's portrayal of his philosophy is at least partially accurate.”
No comments:
Post a Comment