Talk:Stephen Toulmin

Suggested to-do tasks
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)

Toulmin's influence on computer science
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
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)

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)

Final paragraph
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)

Challenging Plato's logic system
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'?
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)

Argumentation theory
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

✅ I updated that article. The evidence regarding Toulmin's impact factor on the entire field of argumentation theory is overwhelming.

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

Possible source: Obituary in the journal 'Argumentation'
Here's another possible source, a 2.5 page obituary reflecting on Toulmin's career: Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

3 of 4 External linka are bad
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
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Stephen Toulmin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100923171136/http://www.willamette.edu:80/cla/rhetoric/courses/argumentation/Toulmin.htm to http://www.willamette.edu/cla/rhetoric/courses/argumentation/Toulmin.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928030512/http://www.jacweb.org/Archived_volumes/Text_articles/V13_I2_Olson_Toulmin.htm to http://www.jacweb.org/Archived_volumes/Text_articles/V13_I2_Olson_Toulmin.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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.

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

Modern Scientific Mythology
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)