The Uses of Argument

by Stephen Toulmin

This reissue of the modern classic on the study of argumentation features a new Introduction by the author.

Genres: Philosophy, Logic, Nonfiction, Psychology, Education, Academic, Reference

262 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1958

Reviews

[Mary · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Oh," my dad said when he saw this book on the table. "Toulmin, he's a real analytic philosopher." He sure is. The first tip-off is that he spends 16 pages defining the word "possible." But this is a pretty good one, for sure. Mostly all I remember, after all the examples, are claims and warrants and the field-dependent arguments. And that's kind of enough.

[Eric · Rating 3 out of 5]

Toulmin’s book offers a critique of the norms and trends dominating philosophical logic circa 1958. Specifically, he is concerned with the limitations of such logic’s increasing analytical formalization and its consequent turn away from “practical issues” of argument (2).”In order to challenge analytic argument’s unequivocal dominance in many philosophical circles, Toulmin begins by differentiating between the “force” and “criteria” of arguments--or, more specifically, of the modal terms attached to arguments (30). He argues that the force of such terms (“cannot,” “probably,” etc.) is consistent across fields of argument (i.e. “to know” is stronger than “to believe”), but the supporting criteria (e.g. empirical observation, deductive entailment) vary. He sees one of the problems with contemporary logic as its tendency to turn modal terms into nouns. He critiques Kneale’s and Carnap’s focus on abstract “probability” at the sake of the qualifier “probably,” for instance, arguing, “If we are to keep clear in our minds about ... probability, we must remember always to take into account the occasion on which a claim is being judged, as well as that on which it was uttered” (61). To this end, Toulmin proposes a model of argument more nuanced than the mathematical formality of the logical syllogism: A datum leads to a conclusion, with the two mediated by a warrant. Various sorts of backing underlie that warrant, with the conclusion immediately preceded by potential qualifiers themselves connected with potential rebuttals. He applies his model not just to the analytic arguments privileged by formal logicians, but the “substantial” (e.g. ethical, inductive, empirical) arguments he defends as different but equally legitimate (104). He argues against various attempts to “redeem” substantial arguments--particularly “transcendentalism,” “phenomenalism,” and “scepticism” (which he links with pragmatism). Instead, he argues, substantial arguments need no redemption. The trouble is just “our perennial habit of thinking that, if one only hit on a happy word, the results of a prolonged epistemological discussion could be summed up in a single lucid sentence” (233). For Toulmin, there is no “logical gulf” between substantial data and conclusions--“only a difference” (251). He ends by turning from critiquing analytic logic to looking forward, arguing for the “need for a rapprochement between logic and epistemology,” with the latter considered philosophically rather than psychologically, including “the reintroduction of historical, empirical, and even ... anthropological considerations” into philosophy (254).

[Tú · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stephen Toulmin's analytical views on formal logic are thought to be problematic when being applied to practical use; yet as being among the pioneering systematic writing in the field, it is indeed remarkable and has made great crossed contribution to the study of logic and functional linguistics concerning rhetorical argumentation.

The later version written by Toulmin, Rieke, and Janik "An Introduction to Reasoning" (1984) is very much simplified and well-written with clear examples.

[Elizabeth Aguilar · Rating 1 out of 5]

DNFed at 20%

I tried, truly I did. But this book was too complicated-- for no reason!-- to read.

Toulmin skips around his point a lot. Given his lexical and grammatical repertoire, he muddles any semble of sense under floeety prose.

Would not recommend

* This was assigned reading for class.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very helpful for understanding formal logic, and the shortcomings of formal logic when applied to practical fields.

[Mark]

This is a highly technical book on epistemology written, fairly clearly I think, for professional philosophers. Nonetheless, Stephen Toulmin was a sufficiently deft stylist that he rendered abstruse ideas understandable without trivializing or impoverishing them. In the not too distant future, in fact, I anticipate reading this book again.

[Larry · Rating 3 out of 5]

At first I thought too simplified and narrow. Later after doing more and explaining the scientific process I decided that he has improved our ability to talk to each other about a basically messy process.

[Miguel Soto · Rating 3 out of 5]

Aunque toma tiempo captar a dónde se dirige el autor y descubrir su punto de vista, una vez que lo logré no pude menos que coincidir. Sin embargo, creo que de haberlo leído en otras circunstancias hubiera sido mucho más placentero.

[Steve]

Got to page 50 or so and realized I wasn't really getting much of what was being discussed. Not impenetrable but the overall point wasn't making any impression on me.

[Walt Kasmir · Rating 5 out of 5]

Toulmin penned a groundbreaking text that revolutionized the way we understand and analyze argumentation. Published in 1958, the book challenges the classical models of logic and argument, which often prioritize formality and mathematical precision. Toulmin introduces a new framework that is more aligned with the way arguments naturally occur in everyday discourse. His model comprises six elements: claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. These elements provide a more nuanced and flexible approach to dissecting arguments, making the model particularly useful in various fields such as law, ethics, and public policy. Toulmin's work is a departure from the rigidity of formal logic, offering a method that is both practical and adaptable to real-world situations.

The brilliance of "The Uses of Argument" lies in its applicability. Toulmin doesn't just provide a theoretical construct; he offers a functional tool that can be employed to evaluate the strength and validity of arguments in diverse contexts. Critics of the book may argue that the Toulmin model lacks the rigor and universality of formal logic systems. However, it is precisely this flexibility and contextual sensitivity that make the book a seminal work in the fields of rhetoric and argumentation theory. Whether you're a philosopher, a lawyer, or someone interested in the mechanics of effective argumentation, Toulmin's work provides invaluable insights. It has stood the test of time, continuing to be a foundational text for anyone looking to understand the complexities and uses of argument.

[Vacho · Rating 5 out of 5]

Estou bastante dacordo coa súa visión. Vendoó dende a visión dun historiador si que considero que a lóxica dos argumentos deben ter sempre unha base empírica e analítica, propias a cada campo de estudo pero sempre tendo en conta a comparación en busca da similitudes estruturais, sen caer en xerarquizacións. Vexoó así aos argumentos, como esferas singulares e illadas pero conectadas nunha rede nodal sen centro.

[Ralph Orr · Rating 4 out of 5]

One needs an undergraduate's -- if not a graduate's -- study of logic to glean the most from this thoughtful tome. Without that, I feel I missed much. Nonetheless, I sensed this text is critically important in the modern history of the philosophy of logic. That is why I gave it four stars: it oozes importance. It is not a light read.

[TK Keanini · Rating 5 out of 5]

Classic text

[Damndirtypandas]

The Uses of Argument by Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1964)

[Stacy]

note to self: foundation for design rationale; Toulmin was influenced by Wittgenstein.

[Ana · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was mostly reading this for Chapter III: The Layout of Arguments. I skimmed a lot of the book after that.

I am NOT a philosophy major. I questioned whether the argument was really solid - he laid out a few types of arguments, but how could they be considered all types of arguments? Really, I was reading it for the argumentation pattern given, and rather than explaining the pattern as I was expected, the author described how the pattern was arrived at and the assumptions inherent in arguments that make the pattern. There was also a good bunch of refuting the work of others. I was particularly uninterested in any of that.

Thin review, thin rating, take a look at ratings from those in philosophy (or those with their hands on the updated edition) if you're reading, this one is more for my own benefit.

[Leonardo]

Teoría de la Argumentación