Let's look a bit deeper into what an argument really entails. We make an argument whenever we are in the presence of one or more others, and we want to convince them to accept a certain statement. So an argument is part of an interaction between several persons, where one of them seeks to convince the others of something. This means a number of things:
- you have to make your position as explicit and clear as possible;
- you have to present a set of arguments that you think may convince the other person to accept your position;
- you should try to find out what counterarguments could be made by the other, and pre-empt these by trying to make clear why you believe they are not valid, relevant, or important.
Toulmin provides a model of the 6 parts that an argument
contains. Let’s run through these with an example.
The CLAIM is the position that you put forward. As an example we will use
the following statement: “Social sciences contribute to insight into industrial
ecosystems”. In order to provide a compelling argument, we must first state the
GROUNDS for this claim: the reasons why we feel this claim is correct. One
important reason is that industrial ecosystems are – in part - social systems.
The next element in the argument is the WARRANT, which connects the reason to
the claim. It specifies why the fact that industrial ecosystems are (in part)
social systems leads to the conclusion that social sciences contribute to
insight into industrial ecosystems. My specification of this link would be that
social sciences provide the up-to-date knowledge on social systems, and such
knowledge is indispensable to gain insight into the social system-part of industrial
ecosystems. This warrant also builds on reasons, which are the BACKING. In the
example, this would be something like ‘insight requires up-to-date scientific knowledge’
(you may accept this as a common sense truth, but others might be less
convinced; they might stress that insight can only be developed by actually
working within industrial ecosystems for a long period of time).
Being an attempt at convincing others, there may be objections to this
claim. As far as you know these, they become part of your argumentation as
REBUTTALS (counter arguments to objections to your claim). In our example, one
could say that in an analytical sense, the social system only causes a minor
part of the dynamics of industrial ecosystems, and can therefore be safely
dismissed. In argument, I would include a rebuttal to show that this is not
true: I could show with empirical evidence that the same industrial activity,
using similar technologies (say oil refining), is organized in radically
different ways in different countries, and that these different organizational
forms have consequences for the flows and environmental impacts produced. This
would effectively silence any opponent that would want to make the objection.
This is one way to take objections to your claim into account in your
argumentation. Another way is to add a QUALIFIER. This is a statement that
narrows down the scope of your claim. It could be that, after summing up
certain evidence, you hold the claim to be unproven in certain types of
industrial ecosystems.
So, providing a full argument means that you are precise in formulating
your claim and possible qualifiers, provide not only the grounds for the claim
but also how these grounds connect to the claim (warrant), and the backing for
that warrant (see the scheme in this link, together with some additional explanation). If you
apply this to your blogs you will notice that it takes some time to figure out
all these elements, and the way they connect. That’s exactly what is supposed
to happen: you are then making the implicit parts of your thinking explicit. If
you write that up, then your argumentation is solid. In essence, that means:
you provide others with all the information necessary to make a decision
whether they are convinced by you. If not, then they will have to provide good
reasons for questioning one of these elements.
Argumentation is important in any scientific discipline. It is especially important in the social sciences, where there is less unity about the concepts and theories that are used. This simply means that the choice for a theory or concept also has to rest on a solid argumentation.
