I have to admit I was shocked to read that Toulmin attacked formal logic. A professor of mine, Dr. Altrichter, has told me as well as other teachers that formal logic will probably be the most important class I ever take and Dr. Altrichter is a genius himself so whatever he says must be true. Formal logic deals with absolutes and things that cannot be disputed. So how is this irreverent to the everyday world in which we should be seeking truth?
I understand what Toulmin is trying to say. Formal logic is mainly something that isn’t based on what an argument is saying but on the form of an argument. If an argument is in a particular form then it stands to be true unless you have a false premise or conclusion. Then the argument would be unsound. Unsound arguments are given no merit. I also don’t think that Toulmin’s criticisms stands true for mathematical arguments and arguments from definition which are logical arguments.
A logical argument would say that taxes are “an amount of money levied by a government on its citizens and used to run the government and the country or state.” A rhetorical argument might say that taxes are merely “revenue enhancements” which make them sound pleasant and nice but nonetheless obscure the actual meaning or lead a reader away from truth. I just don’t see how one can criticize formal logic when all it does is seek things that we can be absolutely sure of.
Syllogisms can be criticized because the form of the syllogism make the argument right but this really isn’t about truth. I do admit that logic is hard to use in everyday life. No one can logically explain emotions but logic is still vital in many discourses and with dealing with absolute truths. I just cant agree fully with Toulmin about this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"A logical argument would say that taxes are “an amount of money levied by a government on its citizens and used to run the government and the country or state.” A rhetorical argument might say that taxes are merely “revenue enhancements” which make them sound pleasant and nice but nonetheless obscure the actual meaning or lead a reader away from truth."
Can you point to anything in Toulman's discussions of arguments that would support this claim? Anything that would suggest that Toulman believes rhetorical argument is about obscuring meaning and leading one away from truth?
As you note in your post, formal logic deals with absolutes and things that cannot be disputed, and Toulman agrees. The problem, Toulman argues, is that not everything in our lives is absolute and not everything is beyond dispute, if for no other reason we either do not have all the relevant knowledge we need to make a judgment based upon formal logic or because the dictates of our values and ethics sometimes clash with each other. At those times, Toulman argues, we need to turn to something besides formal logic.
Formal logic is based upon the syllogism; rhetorical argument is based upon the enthymeme.
Post a Comment