Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Mveme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin/Elements
Framework Navigation
Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/
Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin
Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Toulmin/Elements
The Toulmin framework elements
This is an introduction to the elements involved in the Toulmin framework. These are built up into higher parts of the Grand Framework. The concept can get rather involved and only the barest of treatments is afforded here.
Examples are drawn from law, science and sales. There are two dimensions here: one of particulars or rules, and another of known (or acceptrd) or to be determined truth value.
Symbolically, and in accordance with set theory, have designated lower case to be elements, and upper case to be sets. Hence G would be a set of grounds, while g would be a particular grounds. This allows for manipulation of argumentation using such mathematical tools as propositional and predicate calculus, and can be programmed for automation using high level computing languages.
Claim
The proposition that is being claimed and which the truth value is not known without further argument. it is a claim to the case instance.
In law: A big chunk of legal action is taken up by contracts and compensation. A fine example of a legal claim might be, in the case of a non-fault accident, an insurance claim. A criminal case would have two contesting claims of innocence and guilt.
In science: Scientific claims tend to be a little muted and modest. Rather than explicitly boasting to prove somthing conclusivly, a claim in science tends to be that of “lending support” for some theory. A claim might be climate change is occuring.
In sales: The sales guy is trying to persuade you to part with your hard earned cash; that’s how they survive. The stereotype used car salesman would tell any porkies to push a heap of rust onto a hapless punter. They could claim amazing things that are just untrue as the buyer finds out later to their sorrow. One carefull owner, when the wreck was a write off. This claim is something that the prospect values. example, this model of lawnmower cuts grass faster.
Of couse, the best sales people are truthfull as true claims reduce buyers remorse, improve repeat custom and customer lifetime value, and incite word-of- mouth evangelism, the Holy Grayle of all marketeers.
Grounds
Also known as facts or data, are the given basis for the argument. These are accepted as true, and undesputed. If a proposition is stated as a grounds, but disputed, then it would not actually be a grounds, but a claim. The grounds are the material facts of the case as presented as evidence. They are the antecedents of the propositional logic relationship of material implication.They are particular, rather than general and pertain to the situation.
In law: The material facts of the case; the admitted evidence. An accident claim may have witnesses testamonies and photographs of the accident scene.
In science: The measured data. Pehaps measurements of receiding ice caps over the last 50 years.
In sales: this model of lawnmower has a longer blade. Such a fact is demonstrable as it can be checked either against the specification or by use of a tape-measure, against other lawnmowers.
Warrant
The warrant of an argument links the grounds to the claim. It bridges the accepted evidence to the proposed consequent thereby allowing the truth value of the claim to be evaluated. A warrant is a rule, a relationship of material implication between the antecedent and the consequent. It is similar to a claim as a warrant, in itself is being claimed, and its truth value is unknown. It is different to a claim as it is not particular to the case, but rather a more general rule that connects the class of grounds to the class of claim, and therefore, by instanciation, the grounds to the claim. Note that it is possible present an argument with a false (or at least unaccepted) warrant, even if the grounds are accepted. In such an event then the claim islikely to be rejected.
In law: The claimant will want to link the photographs to the compensation amount; but the insurance company might argue that the damage was pre-existing condition.
In science: The melting of the ice caps are due to global warming. Climate change skeptics could accept that the ice has shrunk, but deny that it is a result of climate change.
In sales: Longer blades make for faster grass cutting. So, if this model of lawnmower has a longer blade, and longer blades make for faster grass cutting, then this model of lawnmower cuts grass faster.
Backing
The truth of the connecting rule, the warrant is unknown, it is a claim to a rule. Much like an argument for a claim of a case instance requires some accepted grounds for the case, then the warrant requires a grounds for the rule, which in the Toulmin model, is called a backing. Similar to the grounds, the backing is demonstrable and not disputed (otherwise it would be a warrant). In difference to the grounds, it is a rule and not a case instance. It is the rule upon which the truth of the warranting rule can be established.
In law: a backing could be a statute, something that a barrister could cite, something that is established and available for all parties to check up on, like the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) section 2. This backing would then justify the warrant.
In science: backing may be of the form of a peer group reviwed paper in a prestige journal describing a double-blind experiment which confirms a scientific hypothesis.
In sales: an independent report such as an article in Which, might have an article on lawnmower blades and state that longer blades cut grass the fastest.
Notably, the lines between what constitutes a backing and a warrant may be fuzzy. This is critical for scientists and lawyers and sceptisism and defence are an iterative process. In debate, backing is defined by its acceptance by the parties. Where scientists or lawyers quarral about the rule base, then really they are proposing different warrants and there is no common backing yet agreed.
Qualifyer
A qualifier suggests the certainty of a claim. The Toulmin model thus far has taken backing, warrant, and grounds to establish the truth value of a claim with absolute certainty. However, it maybe the case that the arguer is other than absolutly certain. This degree of certainty has a spectrum from highly dubious, to pretty much 100% convinced, but not quite. A qualifier uses words to modify the claim such as “very likely”, “ highly probable”, “could well be” and so on.
In law: burden and standards of proof, balance of probailities to beyond reasonable doubt.
In Science: An absolute claim to knowlege is a red rag to academics; such hubristic statements will be torn down. Rather the language is less arrogant in its self assurance, while remaining confident and correct. Rather than exclaiming “I am right!”, the literature would say “patterns consistant with”, or “suggests a possible correlation”.Those in experimental or quasi- experimental fieldsmight even be able to put numers to this. but the point is to admit that we are fallable and could well be wrong.
In sales: Advertising standards are set to protect viewers from deceptive practices and false claims. Advertisers skirt around this by use of qualifiers to tone down the claim and make it publishable. Heinaken is the best campain example of the use of qualifiers; probably.
Rebuttal
The rebuttal is the “yes, but…!” that may be counter argued. It is a condition where the arguement no longer stands, and can throw it out. The argument might appear to be universal, in which case simply citing a counter example, or exceptional condition would challenge its validity. For the one making the argument then, they might recognise the counter arguments in advance and thereby disarm them before the objections are raised. This can involve acknowledging the limits of their claim and throwing in the caveat before exception is taken. The strategy would be to note parameters where the argument is valid or otherwise, even giving particular examples of cases outside its range, but then note that the case in point is within the boundries.
In law:
In science:
In sales: As sales people are well accoustomed to, customers seem obliged to raise concerns and objections: if they didn’t then something would be wrong. The sales presentation then prepares the salesperson with answers to common objections.
Leave a Reply