|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
An editor has wondered whether Toulmin is given undue space in the essay and whether this material should be merged with the Toulmin page. Regarding the first q, he is the field'd discussion of the ideas of giant. There is no one of eaqual stature and his ideas are used by virtually everyone. As for the second question, some of this material was plainly taken from the Toulmin entry. But given Toulmin's stature in the field, this material, in my judgment, ought to remain. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The Toulmin material is duplicative with parts of the essay on Toulmin, but his influence on argumentation has been enormous. The editor's concern is well-taken, but the above comments are valid. The material should remain.Rexroad2 (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Why "argumentation theory" and not just "argumentation"? There may be some part of the community referring to the field this way, but it's not reflected in conference or organization titles: Alta Conference on Argumentation, International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Beeker4747 11:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Internal Structure of Arguments
Whoever added the following passage should rewrite it to meet the following writer's leriness and to make it conform to an encyclopedia entry. Right now it reads like a journal article sort of argument Rexroad2 (talk)
I'm leery of the following passage in the Internal Structure of Arguments section:
"What is an argument that is void of reason ? Is it not just opinion - theory ? One may leap to a conclusion but it must be traced back to the premise and the initial problem by building a bridge of justification else it is just a castle in the sky - an idea, not an argument. The idea may be true or false and may even get common acceptance because it 'feels' right or appeals to expectations. BUT it is not an argument."
First, why is an 'argument that is void of reason' not an argument? Isn't that self-contradictory? (It might be a proof by contradiction that arguments cannot be void of reason, but if so, I think it needs to be stated more clearly.)
Second, if the idea gains common acceptance because it feels right or appeals to expectations, are we not smuggling into the matter an assumption that it is in fact an argument?
"I believe X." "Why?" "Well, because it feels right."
We may not like that argument, but there we have a clear resolution (Resolve that X is to be believed) a claim (I believe X) a piece of evidence (It feels right for me to believe X) and an inference (The right-feeling causes my belief in X). It could very well be an unsound argument; but it seems like a bit of a stretch to say that it's an argument void of reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I just undid the latest edit to this page because someone added a source to the Sources section without citing that source in the article. That edit looked to me as if it might be self-promotion (WP:SELFCITE) of a freshly-published article. But then I looked at the Sources section and wondered: Is this section really a "Further reading" section, rather than a list of sources that were used to write the article? If the citations in the Sources section really were used to write the article, then shouldn't they be inserted into inline
<ref> tags? Another option is to use Harvard citation templates (a form of short citations) in the
<ref> tags to point to an alphabetical list of citations in the Sources section (for an example, see how citations are handled in the Common factors theory article). In other words, this article, as it currently stands, has a mix of citation styles that should be standardized into a single citation style (per WP:CITEVAR). If you have any ideas about what that standard citation style should be, please share your ideas below. Biogeographist (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)