Good reasoning on the Toulmin model
Argumentation 19 (3):373-391 (2005)
Abstract
Some solo verbal reasoning serves the function of arriving at a correct answer to a question from information at the reasoner’s disposal. Such reasoning is good if and only if its grounds are justified and adequate, its warrant is justified, and the reasoner is justified in assuming that no defeaters apply. I distinguish seven sources of justified grounds and state the conditions under which each source is trustworthy. Adequate grounds include all good relevant information practically obtainable by the reasoner. The claim must follow from the grounds in accordance with a justified general warrant. If this warrant is not universal, the reasoner must be justified in assuming that no exception-making circumstances hold in the particular case to which it is appliedDOI
10.1007/s10503-005-4422-y
My notes
Similar books and articles
The Toulmin Model Today: Introduction to the Special Issue on Contemporary Work using Stephen Edelston Toulmin’s Layout of Arguments.David Hitchcock & Bart Verheij - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (3):255-258.
Respondeo: Method and content in casuistry.Kevin Wm Wildes - 1994 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (1):115-119.
David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij (eds): Arguing on the Toulmin Model. New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. [REVIEW]Lester C. van der Pluijm & Jacky C. Visser - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (4):527-539.
Five theories of reasoning: Interconnections and applications to mathematics.Alison Pease & Andrew Aberdein - 2011 - Logic and Logical Philosophy 20 (1-2):7-57.
Developmental issues in model-based reasoning during childhood.Patricia H. Miller - 2001 - Mind and Society 2 (2):49-58.
The Dependence of Stephen Toulmin’s Epistemology on a Description/Prescription Dichotomy.Harold H. Kuester - 1985 - Philosophy Research Archives 11:521-530.
A mental model analysis of young children's conditional reasoning with meaningful premises.Henry Markovits - 2000 - Thinking and Reasoning 6 (4):335 – 347.
The priesthood of bioethics and the return of casuistry.Kevin Wm Wildes - 1993 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (1):33-49.
A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values.Trevor Bench-Capon & Giovanni Sartor - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence 150 (1-2):97-143.
La Svolta Argomentativa: 50 Anni Dopo Perelman E Toulmin.Adelino Cattani (ed.) - 2009 - Loffredo University Press.
Analytics
Added to PP
2013-10-30
Downloads
67 (#180,588)
6 months
2 (#297,972)
2013-10-30
Downloads
67 (#180,588)
6 months
2 (#297,972)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Evaluating Inferences: the Nature and Role of Warrants.Robert C. Pinto - 2006 - Informal Logic 26 (3):287-317.
The Ways of Criticism.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):199-227.
Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Amsterdam (Netherlands): pp. 769-777.
Schemes, Critical Questions, and Complete Argument Evaluation.Shiyang Yu & Frank Zenker - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (4):469-498.
Cochrane Review as a “Warranting Device” for Reasoning About Health.Sally Jackson & Jodi Schneider - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):241-272.
References found in this work
The Uses of Argument.Stephen Edelston Toulmin - 1958 - Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
The concept of observation in science and philosophy.Dudley Shapere - 1982 - Philosophy of Science 49 (4):485-525.