Practical-Theoretical Argumentation

Abstract

This essay explores the dialectics of theory and practice in terms of argu- mentation theory. Adapting Jonsen and Toulmin's (1988) notion of a Theory-Practice spectrum, it conceives Theory and Practice as extreme ends of a continuum and discourses as falling at various points along the continuum. Every theoretical discourse has essential practical aspects, and every practical discourse has essential theoretical aspects. Practices are theorized to varying degrees but every practice is theorized to some degree. Reflective dis- course, which is discourse about practice, moves to and fro along the Theory-Practice con- tinuum. Reflective discourse involves argumentation. Practical argumentation connects theory to practice; it appeals to general warrants, which may be simple or may tap into elaborate conceptual structures, in order to establish grounds for practical judgments. A practical dis- cipline is a relatively coherent intellectual-professional enterprise that cultivates a field of social practice by engaging within itself and with practitioners in a reflective discourse. The argumentation of a practical discipline, like ordinary practical reflection, moves to and fro along the Theory-Practice continuum but in more methodical steps informed by systematic methodological reflection on the reflective process itself. Argumentation theory has traditionally been concerned with argumentation in practical discourse, which has been distinguished categorically from theoretical discourse. Jonsen and Toulmin (1988), for example, distinguish Theory from Practice on the grounds that they characteristically involve different kinds of argumentation. Theory employs formal arguments in which particular conclusions are deduced logically from universal princi- ples. Practice, in contrast, employs informal or practical arguments which 'involve a wider range of factors than formal deductions and are read with an eye to their occasion of use' (Jonsen and Toulmin, 1988: 35). As an illustration of argumentation in everyday practical discourse to which I will refer throughout this essay, consider a hypothetical conversa- tion between two friends, Ann and Bill, in which Bill has been complaining that a mutual acquaintance, Cal, has inexplicably become unfriendly to Bill and has been expressing intense but vaguely grounded negative feelings about Bill to other acquaintances. Ann finally interrupts Bill's tirade to exclaim, 'Well, why don't you just talk directly with Cal about the problem? Otherwise, you'll never understand what's going on!' Ann's argument can

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.