In The Uses of Argument (1958), Stephen Toulmin proposed a model for the layout of arguments: claim, data, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, backing. Since then, Toulmin’s model has been appropriated, adapted and extended by researchers in speech communications, philosophy and artificial intelligence. This book assembles the best contemporary reflection in these fields, extending or challenging Toulmin’s ideas in ways that make fresh contributions to the theory of analysing and evaluating arguments.
In The Uses of Argument (1958), Stephen Toulmin proposed a model for the layout of arguments: claim, data, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, backing. Since then, Toulmin’s model has been appropriated, adapted and extended by researchers in speech communications, philosophy and artificial intelligence. This book assembles the best contemporary reflection in these fields, extending or challenging Toulmin’s ideas in ways that make fresh contributions to the theory of analysing and evaluating arguments.
"In spite of initial criticisms from logicians and fellow philosophers, The Uses of Argument has been an enduring source of inspiration and discussion to students of argumentation from all kinds of disciplinary background for more than forty years. " Frans van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam
Arguing that our attachment to Aristotelian modes of discourse makes a revision of their conceptual foundations long overdue, the author proposes the consideration of unacknowledged factors that play a central role in argument itself. These are in particular the subjective imprint and the dynamics of argumentation. Their inclusion in a four-dimensional framework (subjective-objective, structural-procedural) and the focus on thesis validity allow for a more realistic view of our discourse practice. Exhaustive analyses of fascinating historical and contemporary arguments are provided. These range from Columbus’s advocacy of the Western Passage to India, over the trial of King Louis XVI during the French Revolution, to today’s highly charged controversies surrounding euthanasia and embryo research. Excavating foundational issues such as the purpose of argument itself (assent of an audience or critical examination of validity claims) and the contested role of argument as a generator of knowledge, the book culminates in a discussion of the relationship between rationality and reasonableness and criticizes the restrictions of ‘rational’ argument relying on fixed logical, economic or cultural criteria that in reality are mutable. Here, a true, open argument requires the infusion of Paul Lorenzen’s principle of ‘transsubjectivity’, which recognizes but transcends the partiality of the individual and which can be seen in the pragmatic and expanding consensus that humanity can control itself to safeguard the future of a fragile, damaged world.
The latest edition of Arguments and Arguing contains the same balance of theory and practice, breadth of coverage, current and relevant examples, and accessible writing style that made previous editions so popular in hundreds of classrooms. The authors draw from classic and recent argumentation theory and research, contextualized with well-chosen examples, to showcase a narrative style of argumentation and the values and attitudes of audiences. Readers learn how to employ both formal and informal argumentative strategies in an array of communication forums—from interpersonal interactions to academic debate to politics to business. A newly added chapter on visual argumentation and a striking color photo insert demonstrate the value and power of visual elements in the construction of arguments. The ability to argue is necessary if people are to solve problems, resolve conflicts, and evaluate alternative courses of action. While many are taught that arguing is counterproductive and arguments should be avoided, Hollihan and Baaske illustrate that arguing is an essential and fundamental human activity. Learning the art of effective argumentation entails a grasp of not only the strategies and principles of analysis and logical reasoning but also the importance of arguing in a positive and socially constructive fashion.
Arguing is a fundamental human activity; it is a process of making sense of the world and negotiating understandings with others. Arguing can be—and often is—healthy for both relationships and societies. The values of the community are shaped through people sharing their opinions, offering reasons in support of their beliefs, and deliberating. Hollihan and Baaske present techniques for effective analysis, logical reasoning, and socially constructive argumentation. They illustrate their discussions of theory and practice with multiple engaging examples. The book focuses on narrative—argument as a story backed by evidence to evaluate courses of action or to resolve conflicts. A chapter on visual argumentation highlights the power of visual elements in arguments. Effective arguing requires a sensitivity to the demands of different argumentative contexts. Readers will become familiar with the elements of argument essential for politics, the law, debate, business, and relationships. Narrative arguments are rational arguments. Learning about the narrative reasoning process helps us tell more convincing, credible, and compassionate stories—and to become better critics of the stories we hear.
This book brings together in one place David Hitchcock’s most significant published articles on reasoning and argument. In seven new chapters he updates his thinking in the light of subsequent scholarship. Collectively, the papers articulate a distinctive position in the philosophy of argumentation. Among other things, the author:• develops an account of “material consequence” that permits evaluation of inferences without problematic postulation of unstated premises.• updates his recursive definition of argument that accommodates chaining and embedding of arguments and allows any type of illocutionary act to be a conclusion. • advances a general theory of relevance.• provides comprehensive frameworks for evaluating inferences in reasoning by analogy, means-end reasoning, and appeals to considerations or criteria.• argues that none of the forms of arguing ad hominem is a fallacy.• describes proven methods of teaching critical thinking effectively.
