Blog Post 17: RT, Toulmin, pp. 1410-1428; Foucault, Order of Discourse, pp. 1432-1436 and 1460-1470

RT, Toulmin, pp. 1410-1428; Foucault, Order of Discourse, pp. 1432-1436 and 1460-1470

In the chapter of Stephen Toulmin, Toulmin said logic argument is separated from human understanding. I understand his point; I think that sometimes you understand something doesn’t mean you are logically thinking it. Toulmin set up some rules for logic argument. He said an argument should contain five steps; they are claim, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. I actually wrote a Toulmin essay based on this format in my Engl301. And I think this format is well-structured and ensures the clarity and effectiveness of an argument. Before learning how to write Toulmin essay, my argument lacks warrant, qualification, and rebuttal, thus is weak and incomplete compares to the Toulmin structure. Toulmin said knowledge is the product of argument, and I can’t agree more. I think that while you are learning something, you are always using logic to prove or disprove, and make sense of an argument. Toulmin said scientific knowledge improves not because of accumulation but because of change of perception. He also rejects absolute rationality. I think we cannot always be rational because we all have emotion; we sometimes can get irrational due to the influence by our emotion. This is why I agree with Toulmin on the idea we cannot have absolute rationality. I think that Toulmin’s logical argument is similar to Aristotle’s syllogism in some way. For example, Aristotle said syllogism shows while A equals B and B equals C, A is most certainly equals C. Similarly, Toulmin said Petersen is a Swede and Swedes are almost certainly not a Roman Catholic, thus Petersen is almost certainly not a Roman Catholic. I think that Toulmin’s argument somehow adopts Aristotle’s syllogism. The difference between Toulmin and Aristotle is that Toulmin’s logical argument contains disagreement, opposite views, qualifiers, and rebuttal while Aristotle’s syllogism doesn’t. Aristotle’s syllogism seems less complex in comparison with Toulmin model.

One thing that interests me is that Michel Foucault studies different art of knowledge such as psychology and madness, treatment of prisoners, and relationship between language and knowledge. One thing I like about him is he said it’s not enough for people to accept and pay attention to new knowledge. He said “knowledge is created not by act of observing but through relations” (p. 1433). I think that he has very good point here. I think it’s true that people often ignore new products or theories when it firsts appears and without proven or examination. But overtime, as the relationship between the product and the society slowly builds up, more and more people are likely to buy and consume the product, and the product will no longer be new. I also agree with him on the idea that authorizing power makes it possible for us to speak certain knowledge. I think what he meant here is that if you have power or authority, it will help you get more attention while you express your new idea. Your authority gives a force for people to respect and adopt your knowledge.