| OCR Text |
Show 339 phrase "it is very likely" is the argumentative force that labels my degree of confidence in this baseball club. For an argument to be substantive, which is the ultimate maxim for arguments, Toulmin says that their proper elements of argument - claim, warrants, data, backing - should all be field dependent; meaning each component of argumentation should belong to the same "logical type" (p. 14), or the same argumentative context, to necessarily determine the quality of an argument's force. Qualifiers, however, are different because they are field-invariant, meaning they can transgress fields of argument, since their same statements of probability can be cross-applied to many different argumentative contexts to evoke the same force. It is the criteria that vary. Like Humpty Dumpty, if we put this together again, but differently, we can say that force is one of the few aspects of argumentation that can survive our criticism, because it has always exceeded reason, since the reasonable components of argumentation have stemmed from the other elements of argument (claim, data, warrant, backing) that are no longer useful for mapping the force of arguments. As this dissertation has observed, arguments are not in servitude to reasonable criteria for them to be effective because argumentative effectiveness is simply a matter of producing networks across fields entirely comprised of forces, nothing else. Argumentation, in other words, can be reconstructed on a plane of immanence with many different contextual force fields where controversies occur. Argumentation is thus about force, only force. The action occurs on force fields. Assumptions that hold argumentation is about oral oppositions, reasoned processes, and human actors collapse because pragmatically, the forces that accumulate the greatest networks win. This explains why corporations invested in the fossil-fuel economy are winning |
