• Site Map
• Campus Map
• A-Z Index
• Staff Intranet
• Contacts

Reasoned Arguments

The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy defines a 'thesis' as a 'proposition'. It then points out that, 'in medieval times it became standard university practice that a candidate for a degree would defend one thesis or several theses in public disputations. From this developed a new sense of the word: a dissertation (sometimes of considerable length) presented in order to qualify for a degree.' (1997 edition, p 564)

We still use the word in both senses, and so it makes sense to say that a thesis (dissertation) should present a thesis (one or several propositions). To build up the 'thesis' of a thesis requires collecting data into defensible propositions, through coherent arguments.

While we use the term 'argument' also in the sense of a disputation, it is not necessarily used in an adversarial way here. Consider also what is said about the purposes of research, and remember that in doing research we set out to answer questions. The formulation of arguments can be seen as one of the tasks involved in writing a thesis. However, since we emphasise clarifying the place of facts or data in the argument as a way of guiding the research process, it is important to think about the thesis and the structure of its arguments right from the start.

Stephen Toulmin developed a way of analysing arguments in his influential classic The Uses of Argument (1958). Trying to get away from the sterile certainties contained in traditional logic, Toulmin tried to find out what any argument in the real world would have to achieve. He draws on arguments about aesthetics, morality, matters of fact, and possibilities. Interestingly for students of law, in rejecting traditional logic, he found an alternative model in legal argument. In law it is necessary to make a case which can justify an enforceable decision. The decision must draw on matters of fact (which may be uncertain), matters of principle (common or statute law) and arguments which connect them. I condense his propositions here: to understand them it is necessary to read the chapter 'The Layout of Arguments' from his book, or other artcles which develop these ideas. Toulmin's examples make the point more clearly than this skeletised version.

What all arguments have in common is that we find facts (or data) in order to make a plausible claim. (Note that the claim, in this formulation is more like the judicial decision than the 'statement of claim' in legal terms, as we will see below.)

To back the claim we must have warrants, or arguments, which may rely on matters of principle, laws or other facts for their backing.

Not all claims are equally certain, and they may be wrong. The chance that our argument may be rebutted (by new evidence, by insufficient data) requires us to qualify that claim to avoid overstating it.

This form of argument appears in scientific articles, in discussions of the quality of works of art, and in policy analysis. When it appears in a court case, it may typically look like this:

A thesis, particularly one about law, will probably have different terms in the boxes, even though the structure of the argument may follow the same path from Data to Claim. For instance, a particular law may be one of the facts (data), and the backing may consist of empirical data. To re-use the example to be found at the Questions page, we may want to argue that increased penalties for corporate breaches of occupational health provisions will not result in fewer workplace accidents.

In this case the Data and the Rebuttal are laws (difficulty of applying criminal sanctions to directors, sentences prescribed by the act or practised by the courts), while the Backing is a fact (which may have been discovered by interviewing managers or examining accounting practices). The Claim is not a decision but a prediction, backed by facts and argument. However, it cannot be certain (being a prediction about behaviour of managers and directors), so it is subject to certain Qualifications.

In this example we began with a question regarding likely responses of employers to penalty regimes. This, I said, was a bad research question, because it was hypothetical and so, unanswerable. However, by asking answerable research questions - about the law, penalties, attitudes of managers and accounting practices - we may be able to mount an argument in support of a particular claim. So we can develop a thesis around this proposition.

Of course, we don't know the answers to all these questions before embarking on a research project (any more than I know the answers that I put in those boxes!). However, imagining and then revising the structure of an argument and the data which it would require helps the process of planning and doing research, and then turning it into a convincing thesis (in both senses).

Readings
('Fields of argument and modals')
Toulmin, Stephen. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1964. pp 38-43; 94-113.

A note on some other references:

Toulmin, with Richard Rieke and Allan Janik, developed an elementary textbook out of this work: An Introduction to Reasoning. (NY: Macmillan, 1984) I find the examples designed for US undergraduates harder to follow than those in the 1954 version, but then, I was alive in 1954! The text book is also much longer than the concise chapter reproduced in the readings.

I prefer Michael Scriven's Reasoning (NY: McGraw Hill, 1976) as a textbook on this topic (chapter 7, on generalisation and statistical inference, is available through the readings.)

William Dunn has used Toulmin's schema in relation to policy analysis in at least two interesting articles:

“Reforms as Arguments.” in Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 3, no. 3 (1982): 293-326. and “Justifying Policy Arguments: Criteria for Practical Discourse.” in Evaluation and Program Planning 13 (1990): 321-329.