Abstract
In this article it is argued that a complex model that includes Toulmin's functional account of argument, the pragma-dialectical stage analysis of argumentation offered by the Amsterdam School, and criteria developed in critical thinking theory, can be used to account for the normativity and field-dependence of argumentation in science. A pragma-dialectical interpretation of the four main elements of Toulmin's model, and a revised account of the double role of warrants, illuminates the domain specificity of scientific argumentation and the restrictions to which the confrontation and opening stages of scientific critical discussions are subjected. In regard to the argumentation stage, examples are given to show that a general account of argumentation, as advocated by informal logicians, is not applicable to arguments in science. Furthermore, although patterns of inference differ in various scientific practices, deductive validity is argued to be a crucial notion in the assessment of scientific arguments. Finally, some remarks are made concerning the burden of proof and the concluding stage of scientific argumentation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Apostel, C.: 1961, ‘Toward the Formal Study of Models in the Non-Formal Sciences’, in Colodny (ed.), The Concept and the Role of the Model in the Mathematical and Natural Sciences, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Blair, J. A.: 1987, ‘Premise Acceptability of Cogent Arguments’, unpublished paper, read at the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association.
Carnap, R.: 1956, Meaning and Necessity, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Cartwright, N.: 1981, How the Laws of Physics Lie, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Copi, I.: 1968, An Introduction to Logic, Macmillan, New York.
Eberle, R., D. Kaplan and R. Montague: 1961, ‘Hempee and Oppenheim on Explanation’, Philosophy of Science 28.
Eemeren, F. H. van: 1988, ‘Argumentation Analysis: A Dutch Counter-balance’, in A. Fisher (ed.), Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia, East Anglia.
Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1983, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions, Foris, Dordrecht.
Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: forthcoming, Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies.
Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1988, ‘Responses to Blair and Langsdorf’, unpublished manuscript read at the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association.
Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst and T. Kruiger: 1987, Handbook of Argumentation Theory, Foris, Dordrecht.
Feyerabend, P. K.: 1961, ‘Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism’, in H. Fiegl and G. Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume III, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Feyerabend, P. K.: 1975, Against Method, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands.
Goldstein, M. and I. Goldstein: 1984, The Experience of Science, Plenum Press, New York.
Gould, S. J.: 1981, The Mismeasure of Man, W. W. Norton and Company, New York.
Govier, T.: 1985, A Practical Study of Argument, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Hempel, C. G.: 1965, Aspects of Scientific Explanation, Free Press, New York.
Hempel, C. G.: 1966, Philosophy of Natural Science, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hempel, C. G. and P. Oppenheim: 1948, ‘Studies in the Logic of Explanation}’, Philosophy of Science 15.
Hesse, M.: 1961, Models and Analogies in Science, University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana.
Hirst, P. H.: 1965, ‘Liberal Education and the Nature of Knowledge’, in R. D. Archambault (ed.), Philosophical Analysis in Education, Routledge, London.
Hitchcock, D.: 1987, ‘Enthymematic Arguments’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Disciplines, Foris, Dordrecht.
Hume, D.: 1787/1955, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.
Johnson, R.: 1981, ‘Toulmin's Bold Experiment: Part I and Part II’, Informal Logic Newsletter iii, 2–3.
Johnson, R. H. and J. A. Blair: 1983, Logical Self Defense, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto.
Kahane, H.: 1980, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, Wadsworth, Belmont.
MacKay, R. S. and J. D. Meiss: 1987, Hamiltonian Dynamical Systems, Adam Hilger, Bristol Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia.
Manicus, P. T.: 1967, ‘On Toulmin's Contribution to Logic and Argument’, Journal of the American Forensic Society 3.
McPeck, J.: 1989, ‘Is Informal Logic Really an Applied Field?’, read at the Third International Symposium on Informal Logic, at Windsor, Canada.
Newsweek: 1989, ‘The Race for Fusion’, in Newsweek, May 8, Newsweek, Inc., New York.
Nisbett, R. and L. Ross: 1980, Human Inference, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Pap, A.: 1958, ‘Disposition Concepts and Extensional Logic’, in H. Feigle, M. Scriven and G. Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Paul, R.: 1985, ‘McPeck's Mistakes’, Informal Logic 7: 1.
Paul, R., A. J. A. Binker, D. Martin, C. Vetrano and H. Kreklau: 1989, Critical Thinking Handbook: 6th–9th Grades, Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Rohnert Park, CA.
Phillips, D. C.: 1971, ‘The Distinguishing Features of Forms of Knowledge’, Educational Philosophy and Theory 3.
Swartz, R. J. and D. H. Perkins: 1989, Teaching Thinking: Issues and Approaches, Midwest, Pacific Grove, CA.
Tooley, M.: 1987, Causation: A Realist Approach, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Toulmin, S.: 1953, The Philosophy of Science, Hutchinson Library, London.
Toulmin, S.: 1969, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Toulmin, S.: 1972, Human Understanding, Harper, New York.
Toulmin, S. and J. Goodfield: 1961, The Fabric of the Heavens, Harper and Row, New York.
Toulmin, S. and J. Goodfield: 1963, The Architecture of Matter, Harper and Row, New York.
Toulmin, S. and J. Goodfield: 1965, The Discovery of Time, Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Toulmin, S., R. Rieke and A. Janick: 1979, An Introduction to Reasoning, Collier Macmillan, London.
Trent, J. D.: 1968, ‘Toulmin's Model of an Argument: An Examination and Extension’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 54.
Weinstein, M.: 1976, The Metamathematics of Reduction: A Perspective on Ontology, unpublished dissertation, The City University of New York.
Weinstein, M.: 1982, ‘Musclebuilding for “Strength’ in Critical Thinking’, Informal Logic Newsletter v: 1.
Weinstein, M.: 1989a, ‘Informal Logic and Applied Epistemology’, Resource Publications 3 (4), Institute for Critical Thinking, Montclair, NJ.
Weinstein, M.: 1989b, ‘Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines’, in M. Weinstein and W. Oxman-Michelli (eds.), Critical Thinking: Language and Inquiry, Institute for Critical Thinking, Montclair, NJ.
Weinstein, M.: 1989c, ‘The Psycho-logic of Race Prejudice’, Resource Publication 3 (1), Institute for Critical Thinking, Montclair, NJ.
Weinstein, M. and W. Oxman-Michelli: 1989, ‘The Faculty Development Program of the Institute for Critical Thinking’, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 4 (4), Institute for Critical Thinking, Montclair, NJ.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weinstein, M. Towards an account of argumentation in science. Argumentation 4, 269–298 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00173968
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00173968