Whose Toulmin, and which logic? A response to van Benthem

Abstract

In a recent paper, “One Logician’s Perspective on Argumentation”, van Benthem expressed his reservations on Toulmin’s diagnosis and abandonment of formal logic, and argued that Toulmin was wrong for leading the study of argumentation apart from formal approach. In this paper we will try to reveal two se-rious misunderstandings of Toulmin’s ideas in his discussions, and thereby make an apology for Toulmin.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,100

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Toulmin’s “Analytic Arguments”.Ben Hamby - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (1):116-131.
The Uses of Argument in Mathematics.Andrew Aberdein - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (3):287-301.
Respondeo: Method and content in casuistry.Kevin Wm Wildes - 1994 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (1):115-119.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-04-02

Downloads
39 (#409,882)

6 months
3 (#981,027)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Hans V. Hansen
University of Windsor

References found in this work

The Uses of Argument.Stephen E. Toulmin - 1958 - Philosophy 34 (130):244-245.
Return to reason.Stephen Toulmin - 2001 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Wittgenstein, a life: young Ludwig, 1889-1921.Brian McGuinness - 1988 - Berkeley: University of California Press.
Logic and argumentation.Johan van Benthem (ed.) - 1996 - New York: North-Holland.

Add more references