Cliology

3.1.6. Toulmin

Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin

Framework Navigation

Top: Grand Framework

Up: Fabula

Down:

Syblings:

Child:

The Toulmin framework in brief

This is a quick blog on Toulmin’s approach to argumentation.I will deep dive into this later, but I wanted to give a brief introduction here so as it is foundational to the “grand framework” and also to support and explain my blogs on the noam model. Toulmin provides a framework for analysing and generating arguments.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/ivytech-engl111/chapter/toulmins-schema/

  • Claim
  • Grounds
  • Warrant
  • Backing
  • Qualifier
  • Rebuttal

The first three elements “claim,” “data,” and “warrant” are considered as the essential components of practical arguments, while the 4-6 “Qualifier,” “Backing,” and “Rebuttal” may not be needed in some arguments.

The claim (c) is the thing you want to demonstrate or prove to someone (possibly yourself). It is a material fact, a particular instance, that could be true or false, and the argument will be used to establish which truth value it is.

The grounds is also a material fact or particular instance. But the truth value is established, or at least agreed if there are two parties.

The warrant is a claim made about a rule, as opposed to a material claim or fact, but it rationally establishes the link from the facts of the case, to that which is being claimed. The warrant is not necessarily a valid or accepted rule; a dodgy warrant could be presented which would link the grounds to the claim, but it would still make for a poor argument and possibly false claim.

The minor components are backing, qualifier and rebuttal. The backing, like the grounds is an accepted or agreed rule, that is used to infer the warrant. By providing the backing then the warrant can be argued and agreed upon thereby making the overall argument plausible. Q & R.

The backing then could be the body of law, or corpus of knowledge, something that can be referenced, something that is commonly accepted as true. From this we have support for the specific rule we are going to apply to the particular facts.

The overall structure then is

[diag g bw c]

Examples will help explain this:

Say I get a letter through the post from the council fining me for driving through a bus gate (true story and a genuine mistake, honest). They send a penalty charge notification (PCN) claiming I owe them £90. They include a photograph of my car evidently going through the bus gate as my registration plate is readable. They make the warrant that I owe them money on the grounds of their evidence, and back up that warrant by quoting some statute. Let’s look at the charge in terms of Toulmin elements (Qualifier and Rebuttal are not discussed here.)

The backing (as referencing statue) is needed, as they could just be making the warrants up as they go along just to raise revenue. They could try to fine me based on evidence of me crossing the road at a non designated crossing. But that isn’t against the law so they couldn’t legitimately make that warrant. They would have to demonstrate, back-up, that such a crossing was against the law, and if they can’t show that, then their fine would be bogus.

Alternatively, they could say I have done something widely acknowledged as illegal, but not give evidence as grounds. Again this would be laughed out of court, otherwise it would enable the council to fine people for things they have not violated.

So, the backing and warrant are rules, the grounds and claim are case instances. The backing and grounds are agreed, the warrant and claim are deduced.

[grid         fact     rule

Agreed        G    B

Deduced    C    W

]

For a convincing argument then, the backing rule, and the particular grounds are valuable blocks in establishing the eventual claim.

I have proposed a grand framework for thinking about cliology. There are a hierarchy of constructs which are roughly:

  • The Toulmin framework provides elements for the fabula framework;
  • the fabula framework provides elements for the noam framework
  • The noam framework provides elements for the grand framework

I’d love to go into more detail but now is not the time.

TBA

Elements: propositions {gcwbqr} + others

Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin/g

Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin/c

Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin/w

Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin/b

Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin/q

Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin/r

Specific Classes of Toulmin: {phi, psy} X {tau, pi} X {p, d}

Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin/phi.tau.p

Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin/phi.tau.d

Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin/phi.pi.p

Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin/phi.pi.d

Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin/psy.tau.p

Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin/psy.tau.d

Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin/psy.pi.p

Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin/psy.pi.d

Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliomes/Meme/Noam/Toulmin/phi.tau.pX {gcwbqr}