Comments for I Have A Warrant: Unspoken Assumptions and Critical Thinking at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 8 out of 8 comments http://www.randi.org/site Fri, 24 May 2013 03:44:08 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1743-i-have-a-warrant-unspoken-assumptions-and-critical-thinking.html#comment-25472 C. P Kirschner: You're right, of course, that sometimes the warrants need to be stated. I didn't get in to backing, rebuttals and qualifiers in this post because I didn't want it to get too long and complicated. I may come back to them in a future post. Michael Dawson: Thanks for the corrected link. - Eve Siebert Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:34:19 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1743-i-have-a-warrant-unspoken-assumptions-and-critical-thinking.html#comment-25459 My only issue with the excellent article is that a proper warrent, whether stated or implied, should never be an assumption. It is a logical bridge between your claim and your supporting evidence. Sometimes this can be done with hard facts and data. At other times the connection between the supporting evidence and the claim is disputable. This is when it becomes more important for the warrent to be stated rather than impled. It is also when other three concepts: backing, rebuttal and qualifier, become more relevant and need to be stated explicitly. The more controversial and disputable the connection between your data and your claim, the greater the portion of your work will be dedicated to warrents, backing, rebuttals and qualifiers (if you desire effective communication). - C. P. Kirschner Thu, 21 Jun 2012 01:33:13 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1743-i-have-a-warrant-unspoken-assumptions-and-critical-thinking.html#comment-25455 I must say that I prefer the original first paragraph to Stanfr's edited version. Although the original was a bit wordy, I found the additional information interesting and had no trouble understanding the meaning. - Zoroaster Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:51:55 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1743-i-have-a-warrant-unspoken-assumptions-and-critical-thinking.html#comment-25454 I would love to see more articles like this one. Many articles here are simply praise/condemnation of skeptics/woo, which are amusing, but I really like articles that teach me to think critically and communicate clearly. In fact I would recommend there be a weekly/monthly "homework" assignment for thinking critically. - grieve Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:38:59 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1743-i-have-a-warrant-unspoken-assumptions-and-critical-thinking.html#comment-25453 Your link to the Toulmin page at SDSU returns a 404 error. The link is http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~digger/305/toulmin_model.htm. - Michael Dawson Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:56:21 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1743-i-have-a-warrant-unspoken-assumptions-and-critical-thinking.html#comment-25452 I apologize for the typo in the title. It was not in my original document. I have requested a correction. - Eve Siebert Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:51:31 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1743-i-have-a-warrant-unspoken-assumptions-and-critical-thinking.html#comment-25451 Thanks for this excellent article! I was unfamiliar with the Toulmin idea, so I feel like I've learned something. Some great food for thought. So I picked up the ball now, and will make the argument that: [b]Editors are extremely important -- they clarify an argument and make it accessible to the public[/b]. For example, I rewrote your first paragraph, which initially took me a half dozen reads to understand: Most introductory college courses that teach persuasive writing or argument rely to some extent on the Toulmin model, developed by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin. The Toulmin model consists of three components that must appear in an argument: the claim, the ground, and the warrant. The first two components are easy to explain and understand. The claim is what the author is trying to establish -- the thesis of the argument. The support consists of all the data, information and logical reasoning used to establish the validity of the claim. The third component, the warrant, is a bit trickier. When I first began teaching, I found warrants rather confusing and therefore had trouble explaining them to my students. Most of my colleagues were similarly confused, thanks to the inadequate definitions found in our textbooks at that time (they've improved over the last decade or so). Toulmin himself introduces the warrant by contrasting it with data: [i]Notes: the general rule is no comma for the last clause, but in the second sentence the comma helps delineate the list. You also mention three "may or may not" components without ever mentioning them![/i] ;) - Stanfr Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:48:29 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1743-i-have-a-warrant-unspoken-assumptions-and-critical-thinking.html#comment-25449 Excellent article. The title, not so much (at least at the time of posting). I like to think of warrants as the argument made when taking all of the grounds and treating them as separate claims. You don't see this informally as much as you like, especially in arguments in online forums, and it leaves holes in the argument that leaves people not only alienated as you put it, but also free to assume what your actual reasoning is. - Careyp74 Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:04:08 +0100