106. The Toulmin Method of Argumentation | THUNK

Summary

In this script, the speaker revisits their initial ideas on internet debate, acknowledging the limitations of logical syllogisms for everyday arguments. They introduce Steven Toulmin's model of argumentation, emphasizing its utility in constructing rational and persuasive claims. The model includes components like claims, facts, warrants, backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals, which help structure thoughts and anticipate counterarguments. The speaker also references a study on persuasive online discussions, highlighting the effectiveness of personal pronouns, varied language, concrete examples, and hedging in changing minds. The script concludes by encouraging viewers to consider the Toulmin method for more impactful communication.

Takeaways

• 😀 The script discusses the Toulmin model of argumentation, an approach to structuring rational and persuasive arguments for everyday discussions.
• 📚 It contrasts the Toulmin model with traditional deductive proofs like syllogisms, which are less applicable to everyday debates.
• 💭 The script emphasizes the importance of structuring thoughts to facilitate rational debate, both for self-clarity and for convincing others.
• 📝 The Toulmin model includes components like claims, facts, warrants, backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals, which help in constructing a comprehensive argument.
• 🔗 The model suggests using warrants to establish the logical connection between facts and claims, which is a key aspect of inductive reasoning.
• 📈 Backing provides additional support to the warrant, offering reasons to believe in the connection made between facts and claims.
• ⚖️ The script highlights the value of considering edge cases and limitations in arguments, which is crucial for a balanced and convincing presentation.
• 🗣️ It mentions that using personal pronouns and concrete examples can make arguments more relatable and effective.
• 🚫 The script advises against using emotionally charged language or rhetorical questions, as they can be counterproductive in changing minds.
• 🤔 It concludes by suggesting that the Toulmin method can be a useful tool for self-reflection and for engaging in constructive debates, both online and offline.

Q & A

What is the main theme of the 'Hello Internet' episode discussed in the transcript?

The main theme is the exploration of effective argumentation and debate on the internet, specifically focusing on the Toulmin model of argumentation as a rational and persuasive approach.

Who is Tim the Toulmin Tailor?

Tim the Toulmin Tailor is a character mentioned in the transcript who uses a rational rhetorical framework to sell clothing alterations, symbolizing the application of Toulmin's model in everyday life.

What is a logical syllogism and why might it not be useful for everyday arguments?

A logical syllogism is a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given or assumed propositions (premises). It might not be useful for everyday arguments because people often disagree not based on logically impossible beliefs, but on different assumptions or values.

Who is Steven Toulmin and what is his contribution to the understanding of arguments?

Steven Toulmin is a British moral philosopher who criticized the abstract approach to argument construction and proposed a model for rational, persuasive everyday argumentation, which includes components like claim, facts, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal.

What is the purpose of a 'warrant' in Toulmin's model of argumentation?

In Toulmin's model, a 'warrant' is the mental connection that ties the facts to the claim, providing the logical link that explains why the facts support the claim, thus making the argument more explicit and understandable.

What is the role of 'backing' in an argument according to Toulmin?

In Toulmin's model, 'backing' supports the warrant by providing additional facts or evidence that strengthen the connection between the facts and the claim, even though it doesn't prove the point by itself.

What is the significance of 'qualifier' and 'rebuttal' in Toulmin's argumentation model?

A 'qualifier' in Toulmin's model indicates the degree of certainty of the claim, while 'rebuttal' acknowledges potential counter-examples or exceptions to the argument, showing the argument's limitations and making it more robust.

What did the researchers at Cornell find about persuasive strategies in online discussions?

The researchers found that successful posts in online discussions tended to use personal pronouns, varied language, concrete examples, external references, and qualifiers. They also found that emotional language, rhetorical questions, and parroting were less effective.

What is the 'Change My View' subreddit and how does it relate to the discussion in the transcript?

The 'Change My View' subreddit is an online forum where users present their views and invite others to try to change their minds through rational argumentation. It is related to the discussion as it provides a real-world example of the application of persuasive strategies and the Toulmin method.

How does the Toulmin method apply to the example of Coco and the leftovers?

In the example, the Toulmin method is applied to argue that Coco will likely eat the leftovers if they are left out, by making a claim, providing facts, using a warrant to connect the facts to the claim, and considering potential rebuttals such as Coco being asleep or outside.

What is the significance of the findings from the 'Change My View' subreddit in the context of the Toulmin method?

The findings from the 'Change My View' subreddit support the effectiveness of the Toulmin method by showing that arguments that are structured with clear claims, evidence, and qualifiers are more likely to be persuasive, which aligns with the components of Toulmin's model.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introduction to Toulmin's Model for Argumentation

The paragraph introduces Tim the Toulmin Tailor, who advocates for structured debate on the internet. It revisits the concept of logical syllogism, which, despite its usefulness, is not practical for everyday arguments. The speaker then introduces Steven Toulmin's model of argumentation, which focuses on inductive rather than deductive reasoning. Toulmin's model includes components such as the claim, facts, warrant, backing, and qualifiers to create a persuasive argument. The paragraph emphasizes the importance of structuring arguments to make them more convincing and easier to understand, using the example of convincing someone not to leave leftovers out because a pet might eat them.

05:01

🔍 Enhancing Rational Argumentation with Toulmin's Method

This paragraph delves deeper into the Toulmin method, highlighting its effectiveness in identifying weak points in arguments through a process of critical analysis. It suggests that if everyone applied this method before sharing their views, it could lead to more thoughtful discourse. The speaker also references a study on 'Change My View' subreddit posts that changed people's minds, noting that successful arguments often use personal pronouns, varied language, concrete examples, and external references. The study also found that avoiding emotional language, rhetorical questions, and hedging assertions with qualifiers were effective strategies. The paragraph concludes by suggesting that structuring ideas thoughtfully, as per Toulmin's method, might influence how others perceive them, both online and offline.

Keywords

💡Rational rhetorical framework

A rational rhetorical framework refers to a structured approach to persuasion that is logical and convincing. In the video, this framework is used by 'Tim the Toulmin Tailor' as a method to sell clothing alterations effectively. It emphasizes the importance of structuring arguments in a way that is both logical and persuasive, which is central to the video's theme of effective communication.

💡Logical syllogism

A logical syllogism is a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given or assumed propositions (premises). The video discusses syllogisms as a useful way to think about structured arguments but points out their limitations in everyday debates, as they are deductive and not always applicable to the inductive reasoning often used in daily discussions.

💡Deductive proofs

Deductive proofs are a type of logical argument that moves from a set of assumptions to an inescapable conclusion. The video uses the example of Socrates' mortality to illustrate deductive reasoning. However, it also highlights that deductive proofs are not always practical for everyday arguments, which often require a more flexible and inductive approach.

💡Inductive arguments

Inductive arguments are a form of reasoning that involves making generalizations based on patterns observed in specific instances. The video contrasts inductive arguments with deductive proofs, suggesting that inductive reasoning is more applicable to everyday debates because it allows for the consideration of probabilities and uncertainties.

💡Steven Toulmin

Steven Toulmin is a British moral philosopher mentioned in the video for his work on argumentation. He is known for criticizing the deductive approach to arguments and for proposing a model that focuses on the components of rational, persuasive everyday argumentation. His model is central to the video's discussion on how to structure arguments effectively.

💡Claim

In the context of the video, a claim is the central point or proposition that an argument is trying to establish. The video uses the example of not leaving leftovers out to illustrate how a claim is the starting point of an argument, around which facts and reasoning are gathered to support it.

💡Warrant

Warrant, in Toulmin's model, is the mental connection or justification that links the facts to the claim in an argument. The video explains that warrant provides the rationale for why the facts should lead to the claim, making the argument more understandable and convincing. It is a key component in the structure of a persuasive argument.

💡Backing

Backing in Toulmin's model refers to additional support for the warrant, providing further justification for the connection made between the facts and the claim. The video uses the example of personal experience with resisting food to support the warrant that Coco will eat the leftovers if left out, enhancing the argument's credibility.

💡Edge cases

Edge cases are the exceptions or limiting conditions of an argument that might not follow the general pattern. The video emphasizes the importance of considering and acknowledging edge cases to strengthen an argument by showing that all possible scenarios have been thought through.

💡Hedging

Hedging in argumentation involves using qualifiers or conditions to limit the scope of a claim, acknowledging that it may not be universally true. The video connects hedging with the Toulmin method, suggesting that it is a valuable tool for critical thinking as it forces the presenter to consider the limitations of their argument.

💡Persuasive rhetoric

Persuasive rhetoric is the art of using language effectively to influence the beliefs or actions of others. The video discusses persuasive rhetoric in the context of the Toulmin method, highlighting how structuring an argument with clear claims, warrants, and backing can make it more convincing.

Highlights

Introduction of the Toulmin method as a framework for rational argumentation.

Critique of syllogistic arguments for everyday debates due to their deductive nature.

Emphasis on the importance of structuring thoughts for rational discourse.

Explanation of Steven Toulmin's perspective on the construction of arguments.

Description of the claim as the central point in an argument.

Discussion on the role of facts and their relevance to supporting a claim.

Introduction of the concept of 'warrant' as the link between facts and claims.

Explanation of 'backing' as support for the warrant in an argument.

Importance of considering edge cases and setting boundaries for arguments.

Advocating for the pre-emptive addressing of counter-examples in arguments.

Highlighting the value of hedging in arguments to acknowledge uncertainty.

Insight from a study on persuasive strategies in online discussions on Reddit.

Finding that personal pronouns can make discussions more grounded and effective.

Observation that using concrete examples and external references can enhance argument strength.

Advice against using emotionally charged language or rhetorical questions in arguments.

Recommendation to use qualifiers in assertions to indicate uncertainty and strengthen arguments.

Encouragement for critical self-analysis of arguments before sharing them.

Call to action for viewers to engage with the content and share their thoughts on the Toulmin method.

Transcripts

A 'Hello Internet' fan who uses a rational rhetorical framework to sell people clothing alterations:

Tim the Toulmin Tailor.

Vivaldi's "Spring" rudely interrupted by a loud THUNK.

(one second of brain)

Way back in the dark days of episode one,

I put forward a limited set of ideas regarding the best way to debate with people on the internet.

Basically, I wanted to convey that taking the time to structure your thoughts made them easier to work with rationally.

Both for yourself and the people you're trying to convince.

I cited something that's familiar to many philosophers: a logical syllogism.

Which I still think can be a useful way of thinking about these things,

But it does have some drawback when you're talking about every day arguments.

Syllogisms are, essentially, deductive proofs which allow you to move from a set of assumptions to an inescapable conclusion.

Socrates is a man.

All men are mortal.

Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Badda Bing, Badda Boom.

The problem is, unless you're a mathematician or a logician,

deductive proofs aren't really all that useful in every day arguments.

I mean, as much as we'd like to think otherwise, people generally don't disagree with us because

they believe in something that's logically impossible which you can tear apart by using a syllogistic argument.

But, despite the drawbacks of a syllogistic approach, it probably still is a good idea to structure your assertions in some fashion,

rather than just machine gunning facts and feelings at someone and hoping that they put them together the way that you want them to.

Enter Steven Toulmin,

a British moral philosopher, who was kind of down on the very abstract approach that many academics took to the construction of arguments.

Toulmin thought that the deductive approach that they were using was kind of misguided.

That people generally don't build arguments to discover new ideas the way that mathematicians do,

but to provide rational justification for a claim, to convince other people that it's right.

He was more interested in rhetorical, inductive, arguments.

The sort that we make to each other every day to encourage certain behavior or beliefs,

Where we point out certain patterns and events and use them to assert what will probably happen in the future.

You shouldn't leave the leftovers out, you just know that Coco's going to get into them.

Note that these aren't as air-tight as deductive arguments.

You can't prove definitively that Coco IS going to get into the the leftovers the way that you can prove that two plus two equals four.

But, odds are, if you're trying to convince someone of something, you're going to have to use induction to do it.

To help people who are interested in building these sorts of cases effectively,

Toulmin posited a model of what he viewed to be the essential components of rational, persuasive, every-day argumentation,

using successful legal cases as a template.

He suggested that every rational argument could be dissected this way

to see which bits of it come together and where it was weak.

We start with the claim, the thing that we were trying to convince someone of.

Say, 'You shouldn't leave the leftovers out.'

Next, we gather facts that might be relevant to the claim, things like

data or statistics or even just observations that our audience finds credible.

Things like:

Coco ate that burrito right off the table last week,

Coco's vet says she needs to stop eating people food,

we want to save the leftovers for lunches,

Coco's getting fat.

So far, so every-other-argumentative-method-you've-ever-heard-of

But here's where Toulmin's approach gets interesting,

rather than just dumping data and/or conclusion in someone's laps and expecting them to figure it out,

we supply warrant

the mental connection which ties the facts to our claim.

Warrant is why Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, therefore Socrates is a turkey, doesn't make any sense.

The conclusion isn't linked closely enough with the things that are supposed to prove it.

In Toulmin's model, warrant is given its own explicit consideration,

so there's no ambiguity about what's happening in our heads between the facts and our claim.

If her past behavior is any indication, Coco will eat the leftovers if you leave them out, so you should put them away.

Notice that this is an inductive step,

highlighting some pattern in the facts, which suggests cause and effect,

and bridging that pattern to what will ultimately happen.

Warrant can benefit from backing,

facts which can't really prove the point by themselves but support the connection that's being made.

I mean, I wouldn't be able to resist mom's Turkey if it was just sitting out.

That fact doesn't have a lot to do with the Coco situation, as such,

but it does give us a little bit of a reason to believe that the warrant is justified.

Of course, in inductive arguments there are always some bizarre circumstances which would make the cause and effect relationship not work a hundred percent of the time.

For Toulmin's model it's important to reflect carefully on edge cases.

To explicitly note those boundaries where the argument does and doesn't work,

so we can make sure that this particular situation falls within them.

Like, maybe if Coco was asleep, or outside,

or the leftovers in question were something that she didn't like to eat.

Then it's pretty obvious that this whole thing falls apart.

But if she's awake, in the kitchen, staring at them drooling,

then it's probably valid.

As anyone who's studied persuasive rhetoric can tell you,

instead of waiting for our audience to come up with these counter-examples on their own, and think

"Ha-ha, you didn't consider this thoroughly."

We want to prepackage them in our initial assertion,

As if to say "No, look. I thought through every possible angle on this one, and this is where I ended up."

You might think that she's too full to eat anything else, and that might even be anatomically true,

but you know that she'll try anyways and end up throwing up all over the rug.

For me, this hedging process is where the Toulmin method really shines as a tool for rational thought.

By rolling this critical analysis into the argument itself,

you're forced to look at its weak spots, to find out where it doesn't work.

And then to either reinforce it or admit that it's limited.

Imagine if everyone had to do that before they clicked 'Share.'

That's not to say that every single thing that anyone asserts needs

every single part of this structure to be spelled out in order to be valid.

I mean, this whole deal with Coco and the leftovers could be adequately conveyed by:

DUDE! COCO!

But it can certainly help to have names for all the bits of a good rational argument,

both for making our own and for analyzing others,

Especially if we're looking to debate something a little bit more nuanced than whether or not you should put the turkey away when you're done.

Which leads me to one more thing that I wanted to mention.

If you're planning to get into some arguments, either on the internet or elsewhere,

during the holidays,

some computer scientists have done a fun bit of number crunching

to determine common traits of posts which ended up changing people's minds.

And here's the kicker:

They did it on Reddit.

In "Winning Arguments:Interaction Dynamics and Persuasion Strategies in Good Faith Online Discussions"

some researchers at Cornell dissected a huge number of posts from the "Change My View" subreddit.

An internet forum dedicated to level-headed, rational persuasive argumentation.

(pause for comedic effect) No, really.

The basic idea of the board is that someone will present some details about a position,

Then invite commenters to present their best cases against that position in an effort to change the original poster's mind.

If they admit that they're thinking about it in some new way,

they'll flag the post that pushed them over the edge with a delta symbol.

The researchers looked for patterns in the comments which resulted in deltas

and they found some interesting things.

For example: Posts tended to be more successful if they used personal pronouns like 'you' or 'me' or 'us'

possibly because they made the discussion more grounded and relevant for the people involved.

They also tended to mix up the language of the discussion a little bit,

using different words than the original poster used.

Commenters also tended to do better if they used concrete examples

or if they linked to external sources,

using references to make a point rather than asking someone to just take their word for something.

Successful posts didn't try to parrot anything back to the original poster, or lead with emotionally charged languge.

It seems that being angry or using someone's words against them isn't the best way to change their mind.

Question marks were also bad news.

Maybe rhetorical questions don't make the most convincing rhetoric.

And finally, commenters were much more likely to change someone's mind if they hedged their assertions,

using qualifiers like 'perhaps', or 'it's possible that',

defining regions where it wasn't entirely certain

if something was the case all the time.

That sounds familiar, where have I heard that before?

No, wait, I'm sorry. No rhetorical questions.

I said that a couple of minutes ago when I was talking about Toulmin's method.

Of course, these relationships are just observations of correlation, not necessarily causation.

And, the people on CMV are probably not representative of people in general.

There's no guarantee that doing things this way will get someone to come around to your point of view.

But, who knows?

Maybe investing a little bit of thought in how you structure your ideas

can make a difference in how people think about them.

Both other people and yourself.

Maybe even friend on Facebook.

Or people at a family dinner.

What do you think of the Toulmin method?

Please leave a comment below and let me know what you THUNK.

And, if you're interested in additional content, be sure to check out thunkshow.com

Thank you very much for watching.

Don't forget to blog blog subscribe blog share

And don't stop THUNKing.