The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Uses of Argument
Abstract
A central theme throughout the impressive series of philosophical books and articles Stephen Toulmin has published since 1948 is the way in which assertions and opinions concerning all sorts of topics, brought up in everyday life or in academic research, can be rationally justified. Is there one universal system of norms, by which all sorts of arguments in all sorts of fields must be judged, or must each sort of argument be judged according to its own norms? In The Uses of Argument (1958) Toulmin sets out his views on these questions for the first time. In spite of initial criticisms from logicians and fellow philosophers, The Uses of Argument has been an enduring source of inspiration and discussion to students of argumentation from all kinds of disciplinary background for more than forty years.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Toulmin's model distinguishes claims, data, warrants, backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals, making it useful for analyzing whether criticism is merely asserted or developed through evidence and reasoning (Toulmin, 2003).”
From Beyond Human-Likeness: Mapping the Scientific Critique Profiles of LLMs and Human Reviewers (2026) · cites this paper as Toulmin, 2003
In the citing paper
“The most widely used methodological tool to analyze argumentation in classroom talk is Toulmin's argument pattern (TAP) (Toulmin 2003), which consists of a claim, evidence, warrants, backings, rebuttals, and qualifiers”
From Young Children's Epistemic Operations and Emergent Argumentation in Inquiry‐Based Discussions: The Role of Teacher Questioning and Collaborative Interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Toulmin 2003
Citations
Cites
Prior, A. N. (1957) · Cited by 670
Holmes, G. M. (1936) · Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) · doi:10.1007/bf02973405 · Cited by 34
Brown, D. G. (1955) · Analysis · doi:10.1093/analys/15.6.135 · Cited by 2
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research
Fairclough, N. L. (2003) · Cited by 6,470
Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/146879410100100307 · Cited by 5,506
Phan, D. T. (1995) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-x · Cited by 5,300
The interdisciplinary study of coordination
Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1994) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/174666.174668 · Cited by 3,504
The Nature of Theory in Information Systems1
Gregor, S. (2006) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148742 · Cited by 3,306
Metadata
- Authors
- Toulmin, S. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Corresponding author
- Toulmin, Stephen E.
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2003-07-07
- OpenAlex
- W1997210479
- Cited by
- 7,101
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 202 · 2025: 197 · 2024: 170 · 2023: 162 · 2022: 156 · 2021: 271 · 2020: 306 · 2019: 294 · 2018: 260 · 2017: 298 · 2016: 283 · 2015: 304 · 2014: 356 · 2013: 333 · 2012: 304
- FWCI
- 324.88
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Logic and Philosophy of Science
- Keywords
- Stephen Toulmin, argumentation theory, rational justification, opinion
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
