On tweb I am beset by this know nothing (PIxie) who is so stupid, so badly read. Hes' never heard of Stephin Toulmin and at first he ried to stick me with inventing the idea of "rational warrant." He produced post after post talking about how stupid I am to invent such a dumb idea." Having argued this way all day I finally mentioned Toulmin enough that the monorail actually started talking about it.
But he's still convinced I'm stupid because I'm a Christian, since he doesn't know logic he's convened that "ratioanl warrant" is something I made up.So he goes and finds one or two little things that say "warrant' in connection with Toulmin but they don't say "rational warrant" He's convened this proves that I made up ratinoal warrant and that it's a stupid innovation. his understanding is pathetic he really thinks that because he finds one summary of Toulmin, not the man's own words, but a thumb nail of his idea, and it doesn't say "rational" warrant and it doesn't say "rational warrant is more likely to be true" I say it is, then that means I made up the rational part and i made up the idea of it being more likely. Of course these are stupid ideas. He can't just judge the nature of the idea by thinking about it's content, I have to have an official science person tos ay 'this is good" or else it's not good. That's the decrepit nature of his understanding of thought.
Does it really seem likely to you that a logician would have a concept of warrant that doesn't involve showing likelihood? If you can't show likelihood it may well be warranted anyway, but if you do does that make it wrong? that's the issue, the things there's no official that says the warrant can make it more likely so it guess can't.
do you see how stupid that is? He thinks that it's a devastating indictment of my understanding of Toulmin that Toulmin doesn't say the rational warrant has to be more likely and I do. That is a petty difference. It's from from proving I don't understand Toulmin, he didn't even know Toulmin existed until I told him. Moreover, he's misquoting me anyway. Christopher brought up the issue of likelihood and I said if it's proved to be more likely then obviously it's better warranted. He reads that to mean "Toulmin says rational warrant requires greater likelihood." not what I said not what I meant either. Anyone who thinks that this is a major issue for Toulimin's idea hasn't a clue about concepts. you don't get it. No reason why one cannot or should not demonstrate the likelihood of a rationality warranted proportion. Laconically that would be a stronger warrant. Its' not necessary but it would obvioulsy be better.
we are talking about a proposition backed by 200 empirical studies vs. no counter studies.
he also claimed that he could not find a single example of rational warrant in a goole search.
here's the search from google. how many of these say "ratioanl" warrant?
Did you mean: what is Stephen Toulmin idea of "rational warrant?"
- 2 visits - Nov 17
curious theory of branching time so as to accommodate the idea ... stood by "rational warrant" he does not say. Now a judgment that ...... Stephen Toulmin is one of the best philosophers working on the problem of conceptual change. His ...
Rather, the atomic idea and the continuum idea are continually to hand ...
Show more results from springerlink.com
"the genius of couching in terms of rational warrant"
"'tis usual for men to use words for ideas, and to talk instead of thinking .... No it's the genius of Stephen Toulmin whom Britannica encyclopedia shows is ...
http://www.theologyweb.com/.../showt...tional-warrant... - Cached
Metacrock's Blog: On Rational Warrant
- 2 visits - Nov 16
Jul 11, 2010 ... The basis justification for doing this is the "rational warrant. ... always treating rational warrant as though its some sort of freak idea I made up ... "The article discusses the argument of Stephen Edelston Toulmin ...
metacrock.blogspot.com/2010/07/on-rational-warrant.html - Cached
Some Contributions of Existential Phenomenology to the Philosophy ...
by JJ Compton - 1988 - Cited by 4 - Related articles
the formal adequacy of and "rational warrant" ..... and perceptually present to it, yet the idea of truth ..... order," as Stephen Toulmin called them?which form part of the background for the scientific prac? ...
Rationality and Reasonableness: A Discussion of Harvey Siegel's ...
by NC Burbules - 1991 - Cited by 15 - Related articles
It is the idea that there is a boundary beyond which defensible ..... not be stereotyped as just another version of “positivism” - your discussion of Stephen ... Toulmin suggests that a successful account of the "rational warrant" of ...
IMAGINATIVE MORAL DISCERNMENT: NEWMAN ON THE TENSION BETWEEN ...
by G MAGILL - 1991 - Cited by 2 - Related articles
the same Divine Author, whose works cannot contradict each other' (Idea, ...
Show more results from wiley.com
History and the Christian historian - Google Books Result
Ronald Wells - 1998 - History - 248 pages
... Harvey borrows a model from early work by Stephen Toulmin. ... then I would have "rational warrant" for believing that God was part of the cause of the ...
[lit-ideas] Re: lit-ideas Digest (editing) and Missouri) - lit ...
Nov 14, 2008 ... Independent of > "rational warrant"for belief, one may as well believe P and not-P ... Stephen Toulmin is very good on this topic. ...
NOTICE THAT THESE LAST TWO ARE THEOLOGICAL TYPES USING THE CONCEPT TO JUSTIFY ARGUMENTS FOR gOD, WHICH IS SOMETHING PIXIE AD CO SAID i AM THE ONLY ONE WHO EVER DOES THAT.
The Relation of History of Science to Philosophy of Science in The ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by V Kindi - 2005 - Related articles
"rational warrant" there was for taking one or another of its compo- .... too eager to play down some of his most radical ideas in order to accom- ... Toulmin (1972, pp. 103–. 105) makes a similar point in relation to both the Copernican ...
2 of 20 results (0.24 seconds)
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Arguably, Stephen Edelston Toulmin's The Uses of Argument ...... to be ”..."rational warrant" of claims to correctness' (Rescher (1980), p. 37). A ”rational ...
Science has limits
Oct 29, 2010 ... If you want an idea to be a hypothesis, it has to be testable, ... taht. why else would I use Stephen Toulmin's thing about "rational warrant"
forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?29678-Science-has-limits - Cached
Science has limits
anyone with a real brain can see taht. why else would I use Stephen Toulmin ...
forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?29678-Science-has-limits/... - Cached
Show more results from carm.org
Philosophy Of Language And The Challenge To Scientific Realism ...
by C Norris - Cited by 4 - Related articles
It is often hard to say just when the idea for a book first clicked but in this case ...... Stephen Toulmin and Harry Woolf(Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1971), pp. ...
English Language Philosophy, 1750 To 1945 - Research and Read ...
by O General - 1909
irresistible belief can thereby get a rational warrant. ...... and Stephen ...
Thomas Kuhn - Research and Read Books, Journals, Articles at ...
by T NICKLES - Cited by 43 - Related articles
Stephen Toulmin, John Watkins, and especially Imre Lakatos, whose ...
Show more results from questia.com
Thomas Nickles (ed) - Thomas Kuhn Contemporary Philosophy in Focus
Apr 12, 2009 ... The work of Kuhn, Feyerabend, N. R. Hanson, Stephen Toulmin, ...... a static body of knowledge and asked what rational warrant there was for ...
http://www.docstoc.com/.../Thomas-Ni...sophy-in-Focus - Cached
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
The work of Kuhn, Feyerabend, N. R. Hanson, Stephen Toulmin, ...... and asked what rational warrant there was for taking one or another of its ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Stephen Toulmin, John Watkins, and especially Imre Lakatos, whose ...... and asked what "rational warrant" there was for taking one or another of its ...
Stephen Edelston - Deutschland - E-Mail, Adresse, Telefonnummer ...
- [ Translate this page ]
11. Sept. 2010 ... Philosophy of Science Portal: Deceased--Stephen Toulmin · The Toulmin model today: Introduction to special issue of... On "rational warrant"...
THE NAME OF A TOULMIN WORK IS "ON RATIONAL WARRANT" I ALSO LINITED TO HIS INTRODUCTION TO LOGCI WHERE HE USES THE TERM RATINAL WARRANT. SO pIXIE IS CHERRY PICKING THE FEW TIMES HE DOESN'T USE IT.
ALSO NOTE HOW MANY TIMES APOLOGISTS USE OF GOD ARGUMENTS, PIXIE AND CO SAID I'M THE ONLY ONE.
See what's going on here. This is the Tea party know nothing lynch mob mentality that just can't accept being wrong. even though they know nothing, they know they have no logic or they have never heard of Toulmin but because they have no experience of academic life or scholarship or learning they can't imagine that their opponent would know these things. He knows he has nothing to say but he's tryign to find every little picky piece of crap that he can to throw up there.
It's the idiotic lynch mob mentality of the uneducated. That's what athesim has sunck to becasue Dawkins believed that the fundie mentality was what make Christianity and he wanted to re-make it; ignorant, unread, unthinking, foolish hot head violent fools trying to persecute the learned.
Originally posted by The Pixie on T Web
Again and again and again you have been citing Toulmin as an authority on rational warrant. Let us keep this in mind as we look at your latest posts.
You were making a big deal about "rational warrant" like it is this important concept invented by Toulmin. The truth is that Toulmin does not use the term! Why cite Toulmin as an authority on rational warrant, if Toulmin has nothing to say about it?
So what it a two-word term is wrong by one word? That makes it 50% wrong!
If Toulmin uses a different term, would it not be a good idea to use the same term? You know, if you want to refer to the same concept, and cite Toulmin to support it?
Two different things, Metacrock
Toulmin: Justification for a claim made in an argument, for example by the prosecution in a law court
Metacrock: Justification for belief
May be I have misunderstood your point here. Maybe you only claim to have a rational warrant to argue the claim, and that warrant is merely a possibility (as Toulmin uses the term), but I seem to remember you saying that rational warrant to you meant that it was the most likely explanation, and that it gave a reason to believe the claim.
ok big genius man put on your thinking cap try to get this through your ignorant little head. the philosopher you never heard of until you met me says that this thing he called "ratioanl warrant' "warrant" for short doesn't matter he meant the same thing, is logical permission to believe with out absolute proof.
very simple concept. nothing complex at all. It just means "If you have a good reason to believe it then it's valid."
Now My argument is that I do not shoot for absolute proof of God's existence I shoot for proof that it is rationally warranted (there's a good reason) to believe in God.
that is nowhere in any way contradictory or out of keeping with Toulmin's idea. nothing contradictory about it. I am much closer to being an expert on Toulmin than you are. You never heard of him until I told you about him. One of my major professors in Ph.D. work studies with him.
this is not a big deal. you are desperate to save face. you are trying to dig up any kind of dirt on me and since you don't know anything you have to try the scatter gun and must make trouble about every little thing. you know that's it.
no I didn't say that little one. I sure did not. you are reading that in.
So you are using the term "rational warrant", and insisting it is gounds for belief, and must be probable.
where the hell do you get that? you just quoted a quote from me where I say exactly what I said I say. Look at the parts in red. that's exactly what I say above. you are dogmatically ignoring that fact and reading in something I never said at all!
nowhere in that quote do I say anything about it meaning that it's more probable.
in fact you look at the quote above I actually contradict the idea that it deals probability. go look turn your little eyes up to the quote now and look!
"It does not mean "it might be possible." It means we have logical permission to believe even if it's not absolutely proved. That doesn't mean it can be improbable."
that is a total contradiction of what you are saying.ANOTHER TYPICAL CASE OF ATHEIST POOR READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS. i JUST CONTRADICT WHAT YOU SAY AND THEN YOU INSIST THAT I SAID IT.
Toulmin does use the term ratinoal warrant. I proved you are lying. you are basing that upon two little summaries you read by people who where not Toulmin. I showed you two pages of Google search that showed over a dozen examples of otehr people using the term in relation to Toulmin's idea, and Toulmin himself using it including something he wrote called "ON RATIONAL WARRANT."
(1) it's stupid. If he says "I argue for warrant" and I say "I argue for rational warrant" what's the difference? do you think Toulmin (who you have never read) is arguing for irrational warrant?"
how is warrant different from rational warrant and why does it matter?
(2) why can't you understand ideas? why do you have to so literalistic and picky"
do you not understand that the morel literalistic a person is the dumber they are?
(3) you quoted a summary by Salomone else. show me a quote by Toulmin saying "I do not support Rational warrant but only warrant?"
I already did it. you never answered it you didn't say a thing about it. in fact what did you do? you know, YOU CHANGED THE SUBJECT TO THIS KIT PICK CRAP ABOUT "RATIONAL WARRANT VS WARRANT" SO THAT THE READER WOULD FOGET THAT i ANSWERED IN THREE DIFFERENT WAYS ON THAT LINK FORM EXPERIENCE TO gOD.
You have not answered my arguments on that point. you diverted attention with picky crap. I've kicked your you know what. you have lost give it up sucker.
this is just revisiting the same blather that I answered in the thread early on. I have thoughtfully kicked butt on this. go read the first half of the thread. stop bothering me with your ignorant blather.
I know you haven't. that' reflects badly on you. "throwing hi same around" because he's the best and he's famous the fact that you had not heard of him means YOU ARE IGNORANT AND YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING YOU REALLY SHOULDN'T BE COMMENTING ON THIS SUBJECT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED!
JUST ANOTHER TEA PARTY HOOLIGAN TRYING TO SILENCE THE LEARNED ONES.
THAT'S ALL ATHEISM. IS ATHEISM IS STUPID AS TEA PART NUT CASES ARE STUPID. ALL THEY CAN DO IS PERSECUTE LEARNED PEOPLE.
how do you explain the two pages of google where I put in read all the times it says "rational warrant?" hu? how do you explain the quotes by Toulmin where he says "ration warrant?"
you are a liar and cheat. you know they wont let me quote stuff on here so you think its' safe to lie. I will not put up with your lies. you are a lying little pest you have no education and you can't think.
even after I quoted two whole pages of article you still didn't see it because you are too stupid to look at the evidence.