PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

(^)
other possible structures. It would, for example, be possible to return to the 2500 year-
old method of Aristotle and examine the arguments of these 14 groups in terms of
syllogisms (Mills, 1968). This form of deductive reasoning consists of a major premise,
a minor premise, and a conclusion. For example, When an object is in a state of static
equilibrium (the major premise), the forces add to zero and the torques add to zero (the
minor premise), therefore for this sign F=0 and =0 (the conclusion). It is possible to
develop a thorough model of scientific reasoning and argumentation using the
Aristotelian structure (Giere, 1984). Some aspects of the Aristotelian structure could be
useful in this research, but overall, the syllogistic approach is too cumbersome for use in
analyzing everyday speech (Thompson, 1971).
The argument structure of Chaim Perelman is an “audience centered” theory of
argumentation. Also based on Aristotle, Perelman’s structure emphasizes increasing the
“mind’s adherence” to an idea. To accomplish this, one must carefully consider the
audience to which one presents the argument (Rieke and Sillars, 1975). This structure
focuses on the hearer of the argument and not on the speaker. Since this dissertation
research is concerned primarily with a group process, and not what individuals hear and
how it effects them, this structure is not particularly useful.
Interestingly, many authors writing about argumentation often start with a nod to
Aristotle and but end with a lengthy discussion of Toulmin (Thompson, 1971). Toulmin
is essentially a philosopher and historian of science (Toulmin and Goodfield, 1961).
Although well-grounded in classic logic, he goes a step beyond it. A large percentage of
the existing scholarly papers and talks which use Toulmin are from various speech
communication association meetings and journals. Within two years of the publication of