Towards an account of argumentation in science

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)269-298
Number of pages30
JournalArgumentation
Volume4
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Aug 1990

Fingerprint

argumentation
science
normativity
Argumentation
interpretation
school

Keywords

  • Argumentation
  • Stephen Toulmin
  • deductive validity
  • field-dependency
  • generalization
  • pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation
  • relevance
  • science
  • stage analysis

Cite this

@article{9846f406a96c4137b9bbefafea90efe5,
title = "Towards an account of argumentation in science",
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.",
keywords = "Argumentation, Stephen Toulmin, deductive validity, field-dependency, generalization, pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, relevance, science, stage analysis",
author = "Mark Weinstein",
year = "1990",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/BF00173968",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "269--298",
journal = "Argumentation",
issn = "0920-427X",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "3",

}

Towards an account of argumentation in science. / Weinstein, Mark.

In: Argumentation, Vol. 4, No. 3, 01.08.1990, p. 269-298.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Towards an account of argumentation in science

AU - Weinstein, Mark

PY - 1990/8/1

Y1 - 1990/8/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Argumentation

KW - Stephen Toulmin

KW - deductive validity

KW - field-dependency

KW - generalization

KW - pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation

KW - relevance

KW - science

KW - stage analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34249964159&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/BF00173968

DO - 10.1007/BF00173968

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 269

EP - 298

JO - Argumentation

JF - Argumentation

SN - 0920-427X

IS - 3

ER -