What do you think?
Rate this book
Return to Reason
The turmoil and brutality of the twentieth century have made it increasingly difficult to maintain faith in the ability of reason to fashion a stable and peaceful world. After the ravages of global conflict and a Cold War that divided the world's loyalties, how are we to master our doubts and face the twenty-first century with hope?
In Return to Reason , Stephen Toulmin argues that the potential for reason to improve our lives has been hampered by a serious imbalance in our pursuit of knowledge. The centuries-old dominance of rationality, a mathematical mode of reasoning modeled on theory and universal certainties, has diminished the value of reasonableness, a system of humane judgments based on personal experience and practice. To this day, academic disciplines such as economics and professions such as law and medicine often value expert knowledge and abstract models above the testimony of diverse cultures and the practical experience of individuals.
Now, at the beginning of a new century, Toulmin sums up a lifetime of distinguished work and issues a powerful call to redress the balance between rationality and reasonableness. His vision does not reject the valuable fruits of science and technology, but requires awareness of the human consequences of our discoveries. Toulmin argues for the need to confront the challenge of an uncertain and unpredictable world, not with inflexible ideologies and abstract theories, but by returning to a more humane and compassionate form of reason, one that accepts the diversity and complexity that is human nature as an essential beginning for all intellectual inquiry.
In Return to Reason , Stephen Toulmin argues that the potential for reason to improve our lives has been hampered by a serious imbalance in our pursuit of knowledge. The centuries-old dominance of rationality, a mathematical mode of reasoning modeled on theory and universal certainties, has diminished the value of reasonableness, a system of humane judgments based on personal experience and practice. To this day, academic disciplines such as economics and professions such as law and medicine often value expert knowledge and abstract models above the testimony of diverse cultures and the practical experience of individuals.
Now, at the beginning of a new century, Toulmin sums up a lifetime of distinguished work and issues a powerful call to redress the balance between rationality and reasonableness. His vision does not reject the valuable fruits of science and technology, but requires awareness of the human consequences of our discoveries. Toulmin argues for the need to confront the challenge of an uncertain and unpredictable world, not with inflexible ideologies and abstract theories, but by returning to a more humane and compassionate form of reason, one that accepts the diversity and complexity that is human nature as an essential beginning for all intellectual inquiry.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
16 people are currently reading
218 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
September 16, 2008
One of my favorite books. Gives a compelling and persuasive narrative explaining our traditional neglect of practical reasoning (in favor of abstract reasoning, theorizing, and quantitative modeling). Argues for a reversal of privilege, favoring action research, situated action, and applied reasoning. These are foundational ideas that should be well received in the practical arts such as teaching, nursing, medicine, architecture, and business.
March 10, 2012
One of the most important books I have read. I tend to re-read it from time to time.
January 24, 2026
This is more or less an intellectual autobiography. Toulmin pulls in all of the philosophical, scientific, and literary thinkers/writers, more than a few of whom seemed obscure, and weaves his narrative: Universal, theoretical, abstract Reason got cocky and claimed too much for its domain. That’s the reason why Reason is capitalized. Since Descartes, it’s taken on a cult-like status whereby anything short of its exacting standards is sloughed off as not worthy of serious attention. Knowledge comes via Reason; anything short of that is not.
While Toulmin points out that Reason in the sense that he uses it has an important role to play in the acquisition of knowledge, he argues that we need to balance it with the practical reason of Aristotle, as outlined in Nicomachean Ethics. In doing so, he argues that Reason has overstated its claims. He says that Newton’s contribution to cosmological science was limited to orbiting systems that approached universal perfection, yet his theory of gravity only applied to “two bodies at a time.” Of Newton and his followers, Toulmin writes that it’s about a “Physics that never was.” It was really chaos theory, anything but the universality that goes with eternal perfection. I’m not sure what he means about Newton, but it seems suspect. In contrast, the virtue of Aristotle's approach for Toulmin is that it deals with, and guides, everyday life. I suppose the thrust of that argument is to avoid extremes and focus on the Golden Mean. The pragmatists - Dewey and James - were good at this kind of approach to life. Forget highfalutin theories and work on problem solving instead.
Toulmin then reframes this distinction between Theory (Reason) and Practice by another distinction: the virtue of non-verbal knowledge, in contrast to verbal knowledge and “the elitism of the literate.” Toulmin is good in his criticism of the “science of humanity,” and the social sciences that “are keen to be the ‘Newtons of social theory,’” He’s also good on Plato, and notably in this comment: “When Plato declared that Gorgias and the Sophists prostituted their skills by setting up ‘knowledge shops,’..it was he who was guilty of a vulgar libel. Academic jealousies turn out to be as old as the Academy itself.”
But I’m not wild about what Toulmin otherwise puts forward. In the absence of any higher understanding about what’s going on in day-to-day affairs, resolution of various turmoil situations become a relativistic free-for-all, to be resolved by who is dominant and who is not. Pragmatists are not immune from operating by their own hidden agendas as to what is right and wrong. Didn’t James have a problem with Midwestern nasal speech, and didn’t he see himself in Varieties of Religious Experience as “twice born?” Toulmin lauds Emerson, but didn’t Emerson and have some New England snobbery vis-a-vis those who were not New England? Aristotle constructed his ideal man, as if such a “man” is free of his or her own values. Toulmin points out that Reason and science, even hard science, does not operate, really, with a value-free agenda, so I don’t know why practical or pragmatic philosophy would be any different.
I don’t know why the title to Toulmin’s book is Return to Reason. Despite his disclaimers, Reason is a problem for Toulmin. The book is a wholesale criticism of Reason, and an argument for Reasonableness, such as getting real and solving problems. The future, he says at the end of the book, “is the province…for practitioners who are ready to act on their ideals. Warm hearts allied with cool heads seek a middle way between the extremes of abstract theory and personal impulse. The ideals of the practical thinkers are more realistic than the optimistic daydreams of simple-minded calculators, who ignore the complexities of real life….”
While Toulmin points out that Reason in the sense that he uses it has an important role to play in the acquisition of knowledge, he argues that we need to balance it with the practical reason of Aristotle, as outlined in Nicomachean Ethics. In doing so, he argues that Reason has overstated its claims. He says that Newton’s contribution to cosmological science was limited to orbiting systems that approached universal perfection, yet his theory of gravity only applied to “two bodies at a time.” Of Newton and his followers, Toulmin writes that it’s about a “Physics that never was.” It was really chaos theory, anything but the universality that goes with eternal perfection. I’m not sure what he means about Newton, but it seems suspect. In contrast, the virtue of Aristotle's approach for Toulmin is that it deals with, and guides, everyday life. I suppose the thrust of that argument is to avoid extremes and focus on the Golden Mean. The pragmatists - Dewey and James - were good at this kind of approach to life. Forget highfalutin theories and work on problem solving instead.
Toulmin then reframes this distinction between Theory (Reason) and Practice by another distinction: the virtue of non-verbal knowledge, in contrast to verbal knowledge and “the elitism of the literate.” Toulmin is good in his criticism of the “science of humanity,” and the social sciences that “are keen to be the ‘Newtons of social theory,’” He’s also good on Plato, and notably in this comment: “When Plato declared that Gorgias and the Sophists prostituted their skills by setting up ‘knowledge shops,’..it was he who was guilty of a vulgar libel. Academic jealousies turn out to be as old as the Academy itself.”
But I’m not wild about what Toulmin otherwise puts forward. In the absence of any higher understanding about what’s going on in day-to-day affairs, resolution of various turmoil situations become a relativistic free-for-all, to be resolved by who is dominant and who is not. Pragmatists are not immune from operating by their own hidden agendas as to what is right and wrong. Didn’t James have a problem with Midwestern nasal speech, and didn’t he see himself in Varieties of Religious Experience as “twice born?” Toulmin lauds Emerson, but didn’t Emerson and have some New England snobbery vis-a-vis those who were not New England? Aristotle constructed his ideal man, as if such a “man” is free of his or her own values. Toulmin points out that Reason and science, even hard science, does not operate, really, with a value-free agenda, so I don’t know why practical or pragmatic philosophy would be any different.
I don’t know why the title to Toulmin’s book is Return to Reason. Despite his disclaimers, Reason is a problem for Toulmin. The book is a wholesale criticism of Reason, and an argument for Reasonableness, such as getting real and solving problems. The future, he says at the end of the book, “is the province…for practitioners who are ready to act on their ideals. Warm hearts allied with cool heads seek a middle way between the extremes of abstract theory and personal impulse. The ideals of the practical thinkers are more realistic than the optimistic daydreams of simple-minded calculators, who ignore the complexities of real life….”
October 19, 2024
Again (like Kosmopolis) a very rich book. If Kosmopolis was the yin, than this is the yang.
Very roughly said, Toulmin describes in this book the process of the 'return to reason' after the death of (modern) philosophy.
With reason, Toulmin means a balanced position generated out of the here and the now, in stead of being generated from the infinite theoretical, rational Truth generated by the 17th century Cartesian/Newtonian methodological system. In this process (in stead of in a deterministic way) the moral component becomes significant. Therefor Toulmin uses the model of a Clinical practice to clarify this process.
Return to reason pleads for revalueing the importance of the Greek 'metis', closely translated in the French 'métier', which contains actions that are not describable by means of language, but purely based on experience and discipline.
Reason is the way to make decisions in the here and the now, based on the balanced combination of ideals and reality. It pleads for taking charge of our free will to actively form our future independent of the unexpected events which can occur. The latter we don't have control on, but we can choose to aim for a reasonable goals to work towards, every day again.
Both Kosmopolis and this book were fundamental in forming my view on modern philosophy. Both books connect the historical context with the evolution of the philosophical/academical process over the last 400 years. Therefor 5 stars for both books.
Very roughly said, Toulmin describes in this book the process of the 'return to reason' after the death of (modern) philosophy.
With reason, Toulmin means a balanced position generated out of the here and the now, in stead of being generated from the infinite theoretical, rational Truth generated by the 17th century Cartesian/Newtonian methodological system. In this process (in stead of in a deterministic way) the moral component becomes significant. Therefor Toulmin uses the model of a Clinical practice to clarify this process.
Return to reason pleads for revalueing the importance of the Greek 'metis', closely translated in the French 'métier', which contains actions that are not describable by means of language, but purely based on experience and discipline.
Reason is the way to make decisions in the here and the now, based on the balanced combination of ideals and reality. It pleads for taking charge of our free will to actively form our future independent of the unexpected events which can occur. The latter we don't have control on, but we can choose to aim for a reasonable goals to work towards, every day again.
Both Kosmopolis and this book were fundamental in forming my view on modern philosophy. Both books connect the historical context with the evolution of the philosophical/academical process over the last 400 years. Therefor 5 stars for both books.
May 23, 2012
Wonderful read. Very historical.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews