Talk:Stephen Toulmin

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

History of Science Mid‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Logic / Ethics / Science / Analytic / Contemporary Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Logic
	Ethics
	Philosophy of science
	Analytic philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Suggested to-do tasks[edit]

Tasks: Find a good template, collect his full list of writings, write a short bio, get a picture, list some meaty quotations, provide contact information. Iterate and extend this list. (this has been moved from main article)

Excellent suggestions. Toulmin has just recently died. Perhaps that should be noted Rexroad2 (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toulmin's influence on computer science[edit]

Toulmin's 1958 model of argument has also been influential in computer science, for the design of computational argumentation systems (eg, expert computer systems able to explain their reasoning). I will add something on this in due course. Peter McBurney, 2006-06-15.

Whereabout of evolution of his evolutionary view[edit]

Stephen Toulmin's evolutionary view appears to emerge and evolve along the following immediate mediation of works in particular:

Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1963),
Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (1972),
Stephen Toulmin, Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts (1972),
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (1976).

Thus it would be noteworthy that these works are logically relevant or similar to each other, even if they are not causally so. This is the logical necessity of information retrieval by subject content or aboutness, in contrast to the causal necessity by citation context. The objection to Thomas Kuhn's revolutionary view do little harm to the logical relevance or similarity. No difference without similarity! To put it another way, both should go hand in hand! --ishiakkum 03:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The impression given about Kuhn's Revolutionary theory is one of meaningless relativism where two mutually exclusive paradigms are selected without recourse to established standards. This may mislead or confuse uninitiated readers. As science appeals to coherentist, pragmatist and empirical notions of truth, some clarifying commentary on the relevance of these yardsticks on Kuhn's and Toulmin's models would add value to the discussion - but it would require input from a credibly qualified epistemologist or philosopher of science.219.75.12.86 (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final paragraph[edit]

Is the final paragraph of this section restating falsification theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.63.172 (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging Plato's logic system[edit]

The page under discussion seems to state that Plato developed a system of formal logic. I don't think that is true! -- Gene Callahan

Pronouncing 'Toulmin'?[edit]

What is the correct pronunciation of 'Toulmin'? Some say it's pronounced as written, others argue for a more francophile pronunciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.236.65.240 (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentation theory[edit]

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 question, he is the field's giant. There is no one of equal 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. 136.165.77.101 (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity I've moved the foregoing post by 136.165.77.101 (talk) to the bottom of this page and added an identifying header linking to the page in question, Argumentation theory.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i've never heard of the guy, but it seems that his work is extremely well cited and therefore quite important in that subject. i suggest that section only be made shorter than it currently is. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I updated that article. The evidence regarding Toulmin's impact factor on the entire field of argumentation theory is overwhelming.^[1]

^ Loui, Ronald P. (2006). "A Citation-Based Reflection on Toulmin and Argument". In Hitchcock, David; Verheij, Bart (eds.). Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Springer Netherlands. pp. 31–38. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-4938-5_3. ISBN 978-1-4020-4937-8. Toulmin's 1958 work is essential in the field of argumentation {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Paulscrawl (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source: Obituary in the journal 'Argumentation'[edit]

Here's another possible source, a 2.5 page obituary reflecting on Toulmin's career: Hitchcock, David (2010). "Obituary: Stephen Edelston Toulmin". Argumentation. 24 (3): 399–401. doi:10.1007/s10503-010-9185-4. ISSN 0920-427X. Retrieved 2010-08-15. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 of 4 External linka are bad[edit]

This high ratio indicates the links were not well selected ? Or simply that no one is maintaining this article? Bad luck?

G. Robert Shiplett 00:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Stephen Toulmin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen Toulmin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227055517/http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/CMTS/docs/dissent.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/CMTS/docs/dissent.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Scientific Mythology[edit]

An important work of Stephen Toulmin's which receives little attention in the main article is his long essay on "Modern Scientific Mythology," which appeared in the collection "Metaphysical Beliefs" in 1957 which was reprinted in paperback in 1970, but has been out of print for a long time. He looks into the currently vast industry of Popular Science, whose overarching statements about the world and ourselves may be suggested by scientific observations and experiments but go far beyond what they can prove. This he saw as occupying the place in the modern world that much philosophical and theological discourse, and especially "Natural Theology," did in earlier centuries. We may have an appetite for this stuff, and it may give us comfort, but we should not think that there is scientific justification for it, even if it is sold to us by scientists. Current examples (which he did not mention) include Sociobiology and Neuro-Linguistic Programming. NRPanikker (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Loui, Ronald P. (2006). "A Citation-Based Reflection on Toulmin and Argument". In Hitchcock, David; Verheij, Bart (eds.). Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Springer Netherlands. pp. 31–38. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-4938-5_3. ISBN 978-1-4020-4937-8. Toulmin's 1958 work is essential in the field of argumentation {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

[1]