Different Types Of Arguments Research Articles

Studi Mad’u dan Teori Resepsi Stuart Hall: Analisis Komentar Netizen pada Ceramah Virtual Buya Yahya

This article reports on the textual thematic research conducted with 100 Netizens' comments on the YouTube channel of Al-Bahjah TV entitled "Tanggapan Buya Yahya tentang Fatwa MUI Haram Membeli Produk Isra*l/Yahudi (The Response of Buya Yahya to the MUI Fatwa on the Prohibition of Buying Israeli/Jewish Products)”. This study uses thematic analysis and Stuart Hall's reception theoretical framework to examine Netizens' (mad’u) reception towards Buya Yahya's online preaching regarding MUI recommendation for Muslims to avoid buying any products affiliated with Israel. The findings illustrate three different mad'u receptions, namely dominant hegemonic reading (48), negotiated reading (22), and oppositional reading (30). The Netizens' (mad'u) cultural background influenced the variety of their reading positions of Buya Yahya's preaching, which resulted in several different types of arguments: humanity, religion, economy, socio-politics, and commodification of religion.

On being drawn to different types of arguments: a mouse-tracking study

How people distinguish well-justified from poorly justified arguments is not well known. To study the involvement of intuitive and analytic cognitive processes, we contrasted participants’ personal beliefs with argument strength that was determined in relation to established criteria of sound argumentation. In line with previous findings indicating that people have a myside bias, participants (N = 249) made more errors on conflict than on no-conflict trials. On conflict trials, errors and correct responses were practically equal in terms of response times and mouse-tracking indices of hesitation. Similarly to recent findings on formal reasoning, these findings indicate that correct reasoning about informal arguments may not necessitate corrective analytic processing. We compared findings across four argument schemes but found few differences. The findings are discussed in light of intuitive logic theories and the notion that evaluating informal arguments could be based on implicit knowledge of argument criteria.

Argumentation Schemes for Blockchain Deanonymisation

Cryptocurrency forensics have become standard tools for law enforcement. Their basic idea is to deanonymise cryptocurrency transactions to identify the people behind them. Cryptocurrency deanonymisation techniques are often based on premises that largely remain implicit, especially in legal practice. On the one hand, this implicitness complicates investigations. On the other hand, it can have far-reaching consequences for the rights of those affected. Argumentation schemes could remedy this untenable situation by rendering the underlying premises more transparent. Additionally, they can aid in critically evaluating the probative value of any results obtained by cryptocurrency deanonymisation techniques. In the argumentation theory and AI community, argumentation schemes are influential as they state the implicit premises for different types of arguments. Through their critical questions, they aid the argumentation participants in critically evaluating arguments. We specialise the notion of argumentation schemes to legal reasoning about cryptocurrency deanonymisation. Furthermore, we demonstrate the applicability of the resulting schemes through an exemplary real-world case. Ultimately, we envision that using our schemes in legal practice can solidify the evidential value of blockchain investigations, as well as uncover and help to address uncertainty in the underlying premises—thus contributing to protecting the rights of those affected by cryptocurrency forensics.

Individual Differences in Argument Strength Discrimination

Being able to discriminate poorly justified from well justified arguments is necessary for informed citizenship. However, it is not known whether the ability to recognize argument strength generalizes across different types of arguments, and what cognitive factors predict this ability or these abilities. Drawing on the theory of argument schemes, we examined arguments from consequence, analogy, symptoms, and authority in order to cover all major types of arguments. A study (N = 278) on the general population in Finland indicated that the ability to discriminate between strong and weak arguments did not differ between these schemes. Argument strength discrimination ability correlated positively with analytic thinking dispositions promoting both quality and quantity of thinking, slightly positively with education, and negatively with overconfidence. It was unrelated to an intuitive thinking style, and to self-rated mental effort.

Analysis of Anti-Vaccination Discourse on Turkish Alternative News Websites

The media's information and enticement functions have grown increasingly important as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. The purpose of this research on the anti-vaccination movement in Turkey was to better elucidate the different types of arguments that are deployed by key actors in the field of anti-vaccination, especially online. This research has analyzed the anti-vaccine movement, particularly in Turkey. More specifically, the argument that is deployed online by the alternative Turkish news websites is being analyzed. According to the results of the study, it was found that the news sites do not agree even when it comes to global issues such as pandemics. It is searched that alternative news websites have adopted the discourse of anti-vaccination without truly basing their arguments on scientific facts.

DMalNet: Dynamic malware analysis based on API feature engineering and graph learning

Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) are widely considered a useful data source for dynamic malware analysis to understand the behavioral characteristics of malware. However, the accuracy of API-based malware analysis is limited for two reasons. (1) Existing solutions often only consider the API names while ignoring the API arguments, or cannot fully exploit the semantic information from different types of arguments. (2) The relationship between API calls is important to describe the software behavior but is difficult to capture. To overcome the above limitations, we propose DMalNet, a novel malware analysis framework for accurate malware detection and classification. Specifically, we first present a hybrid feature encoder to extract semantic features from API names and arguments. Then, we derive an API call graph from the API call sequence to convert the relationship between API calls into the structural information of the graph. Finally, we design a graph neural network to implement the malware detection and type classification. To evaluate our approach, we use datasets of over 20k benign and 18k malicious samples belonging to 8 malware types. DMalNet achieves 98.43% and 91.42% accuracy on malware detection and malware type classification, respectively. We also conduct ablation studies to assess the impact of API feature engineering and the graph learning model. Further experiments show that DMalNet can effectively detect malware.

Экономика языка и многоязычие: опыт исследования в Татарстане

Acknowledgements. The reported study was funded by RFBR and DFG, project number № 21-512-12002 ННИО_а “Prognostic methods and future scenarios in language policy – multilingual Russia as an example”. Abstract. This interdisciplinary article is written at the intersection of ethnography of language policy and language economy – a science, underestimated both by (socio)linguists and economists. It aims to identify whether the competence in a minority language affects people's income taking the example of one of the regions of the Russian Federation – the Republic of Tatarstan. The data were collected in October 2021 through a sociolinguistic survey, interviewing, and ethnographic observation. The empirical analysis revealed the absence of a positive correlation between the income of the majority of respondents and their knowledge of the Tatar language. At the same time, for a third of the respondents such knowledge brings both direct and indirect benefits, from establishing business and personal contacts with the Turkic-speaking world to employment opportunities and part-time jobs in the areas where knowledge of Tatar is necessary. The negative relationship between the Tatar language proficiency and income is primarily due to the state language policy and legislation of the country aimed at promoting the Russian language. Overall, the study concludes that the economic value of minority languages remains low and that there are different types of arguments for language choice. The choice of a minority language is motivated by the importance of language for culture and ethnic identity, while the choice of a dominant language is motivated by economic and pragmatic arguments (soft arguments vs. hard arguments). The importance of the monetary component in people’s language decisions allows making a rather pessimistic forecast about the future of minority languages.

Philosophy’s gender gap and argumentative arena: an empirical study

While the empirical evidence pointing to a gender gap in professional, academic philosophy in the English-speaking world is widely accepted, explanations of this gap are less so. In this paper, we aim to make a modest contribution to the literature on the gender gap in academic philosophy by taking a quantitative, corpus-based empirical approach. Since some philosophers have suggested that it may be the argumentative, “logic-chopping,” and “paradox-mongering” nature of academic philosophy that explains the underrepresentation of women in the discipline, our research questions are the following: Do men and women philosophers make different types of arguments in their published works? If so, which ones and with what frequency? Using data mining and text analysis methods, we study a large corpus of philosophical texts mined from the JSTOR database in order to answer these questions empirically. Using indicator words to classify arguments by type (namely, deductive, inductive, and abductive arguments), we search through our corpus to find patterns of argumentation. Overall, the results of our empirical study suggest that women philosophers make deductive, inductive, and abductive arguments in their published works just as much as male philosophers do, with no statistically significant differences in the proportions of those arguments relative to each philosopher’s body of work.

Intuition and Ingenuity: Gödel on Turing’s “Philosophical Error”

Despite his unreserved appreciation of Turing’s analysis for being a “precise and unquestionably adequate definition” of formal system or mechanical computability, Gödel nevertheless published a short note in 1972 claiming to have found a “philosophical error” in Turing’s argument with regard to the finite nature of mental states and memory. A natural question arises: how could Gödel enjoy the generality conferred on his results by Turing’s work, despite the error of its ways? Previous interpretative strategies by Feferman, Shagrir and others have mainly tried to resolve the disparity by distinguishing different types of arguments in Turing and taking Gödel to approve only some of them. By a more integral examination of their ideas, especially Turing’s response to the “mathematical objection” based on Gödel’s incompleteness theorem and Gödel’s own conception of finite yet non-mechanical procedures, and taking some of the main ideas of current developments in machine learning into consideration, I will try to present a new explanation for the apparent disparity, arguing that there is no “error” on Turing’s side and the seemingly conflicting views held by Turing and Gödel should best be seen as complementary, keeping intuition and ingenuity together.

The analytic‐continental divide in philosophical practice: An empirical study

AbstractPhilosophy is often divided into two traditions: analytic and continental philosophy. Characterizing the analytic‐continental divide, however, is no easy task. Some philosophers explain the divide in terms of the place of argument in these traditions. This raises the following questions: Is analytic philosophy rife with arguments while continental philosophy is devoid of arguments? Or can different types of arguments be found in analytic and continental philosophy? This paper presents the results of an empirical study of a large corpus of philosophical texts mined from the JSTOR database (n = 53,260) designed to find patterns of argumentation by type. Overall, the results suggest that there are no significant differences between the types of arguments advanced in analytic and continental philosophy journal articles. The findings, therefore, provide no empirical support to the hypothesis that the divide between analytic and continental philosophy has to do with the place of argument in these traditions.

Norms That Regulate the Theorem Construction Process in an Inquiry Classroom of 3D Geometry: Teacher’s Management to Promote Them

This paper aims to illustrate how a teacher instilled norms that regulate the theorem construction process in a three-dimensional geometry course. The course was part of a preservice mathematics teacher program, and it was characterized by promoting inquiry and argumentation. We analyze class excerpts in which students address tasks that require formulating conjectures, that emerge as a solution to a problem and proving such conjectures, and the teacher leads whole-class activities where students’ productions are exposed. For this, we used elements of the didactical analysis proposed by the onto-semiotic approach and Toulmin’s model for argumentation. The teacher’s professional actions that promoted reiterative actions in students’ mathematical practices were identified; we illustrate how these professional actions impelled students’ actions to become norms concerning issues about the legitimacy of different types of arguments (e.g., analogical and abductive) in the theorem construction process.

Preschool children’s mathematical arguments in play-based activities

The present study examines the structure and mathematical content of children’s mathematical arguments as part of communication in play-based activities. It shows how Nordin and Boistrup’s (The Journal of Mathematical Behavior 51:15–27, 2018) framework for identifying and reconstructing mathematical arguments, which includes Toulmin’s model of argumentation, the notion of anchoring (Lithner, Educational Studies in Mathematics 67:255–276, 2008) and a multimodal approach, can be used to identify and explore preschool children’s mathematical arguments. Two different types of argument that occurred during play-based activities were identified: partial arguments and full arguments. The findings reveal the extensive use of multimodal interactions in all parts of the children’s mathematical arguments. Moreover, the findings point to the crucial role of adults as dialogue collaborators in the argumentation that emerges in the play-based activities.

Algebraic and fractional thinking in collective mathematical reasoning

This study examines the collective mathematical reasoning when students and teachers in grades 3, 4, and 5 explore fractions derived from length comparisons, in a task inspired by the El´konin and Davydov curriculum. The analysis showed that the mathematical reasoning was mainly anchored in mathematical properties related to fractional or algebraic thinking. Further analysis showed that these arguments were characterised by interplay between fractional and algebraic thinking except in the conclusion stage. In the conclusion and the evaluative arguments, these two types of thinking appeared to be intertwined. Another result is the discovery of a new type of argument, identifying arguments, which deals with the first step in task solving. Here, the different types of arguments, including the identifying arguments, were not initiated only by the teachers but also by the students. This in a multilingual classroom with a large proportion of students newly arrived. Compared to earlier research, this study offers a more detailed analysis of algebraic and fractional thinking including possible patterns within the collective mathematical reasoning. An implication of this is that algebraic and fractional thinking appear to be more intertwined than previous suggested.

Comments to Jean-Claude Burgelman's article Politics and Open Science: How the European Open Science Cloud Became Reality (the Untold Story)

I appreciated Burgleman's entertaining description of how European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) became a reality. The paper tells the story from the “Brussel Bubble” perspective, to use the author's terminology. In doing so, he sheds light on many important aspects of the path to the necessary policies and stakeholder engagement around EOSC.I recognise many of the discussions, fears and frustrations along the way. When I first heard of EOSC I must admit that I was sceptical too, like many other policy makers Burgleman mentions. The vision of EOSC was not as clear as it is today, it was cloudy. There were many different types of arguments on why Europe needed EOSC and what it was supposed to achieve. After years of discussions and iterations, I think that what Burgelman refers to as co-creation has resulted in objectives that many can agree to and align with.EOSC rapidly gained a lot of momentum and support from the EC and the Council but it took longer for the broader group of stakeholders to recognise its value. There came a tidal wave of expert opinions about Open Science (OS), where many researchers were critical to the whole idea. It is and was of course essential to have the researchers on board, but EOSC was not an obvious bottom-up initiative. It was disruptive and was inherently going to be met with some resistance. Researchers feared, perhaps some still do, that EOSC policies would force them to give away their research data and produce piles of unusable but Open Data (OD). If it hadn't been for the FAIR principles, I think we still would have been busy discussing such topics today. However, I recognise that those who implement EOSC still have a huge task (and responsibility) ahead to ensure that the initiative reaches its full potential.Burgleman claims the single biggest mistake was misjudging the democratic basis that underpins the decision making in each member states (MSs). The processes at national level are different to those of the EC. MSs must take a much broader perspective, considering the society at large in their countries and the priorities of their constituents. This means that they do not always end up drawing the same conclusions as a group of experts would do. To me, this is one of the key reasons why EC and MSs often need iterations of discussions to finally arrive at something that everyone can agree on. The differences in perspective are very valuable and I think EOSC needs both the democratic and expert component to be truly successful.Thousands of stakeholders and policy makers have been involved in getting the EOSC ball rolling. The establishment of the EOSC Association marks a big milestone as the vision now has a formal platform where the stakeholders are working hard to detail the objectives and priorities. The value of EOSC and the work of its community has already been shown during the Corona pandemic, where researchers are sharing their findings to more rapidly find a cure.As excited as I am to follow the implementation of EOSC, I am equally excited to discover the spill-overs from the initiative. CERN was built to create peace and better research, but also led to the invention of the World Wide Web. EOSC sets out to create a Web of FAIR data and enable better data intensive research. Perhaps it will help us find a path to data sovereignty that increases collaboration and thus leads to stability and peace in a rapidly changing world.

Mapping the epistemic arguments for religious toleration

AbstractIn the literature on toleration, epistemic arguments are commonly equated with John Stuart Mill's fallibilism according to which toleration of opinions is a necessary means to the attainment of truth. This conflation does not capture the variety of those arguments and it results from the fact that a proper analysis of epistemic arguments for religious toleration and a systematic account of their different types are still lacking. The purpose of this article is to provide such an analysis and to argue that those arguments come in four different types, which I name fallibilism, religious belief-forming process, epistemic parity, and differentiated access to religious truth or divine message. I also offer a mapping of those different types of arguments using the standard epistemic notions of justification, truth, and belief coupled with a distinction of focus in the epistemological approach – whether individually or socially focused.

The Child’s Best Interests and the Politics of Adoptions from Care in Norway

This paper examines how Norway turned to a more active policy on adoption in the child welfare system. It examines the full public records from all four times that the government and Storting debated adoption from care, over the period 2002–2013. I analyse the empirical and normative arguments that shaped policy, through a discourse theoretical framework (Habermas, 1996) to distinguish different types of arguments. The Article contributes an empirical case for analysing the normative aspects of social and welfare policy. The findings show that an active adoption policy is justified by strengthening of child-centred perspectives. First, research and expert discourse gained influence in the framing of adoption policy over time. Second, the ethical response to this knowledge base has been to shift attention from shared family needs to the child’s individual and developmental needs. There are signs that legislators view adoption in relation to children as independent legal subjects with rights.

Epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of the construction of different types of arguments on socioscientific issues

AbstractThis study investigates whether university students’ epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge about controversial socioscientific issues (SSIs) can predict the different types of arguments that students construct. Two hundred forty‐three university students were asked to construct different types of supportive arguments—social, ethical, economic, scientific, ecological—as well as counterarguments and rebuttals after they had read a scenario on a SSI. Participants’ epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge were assessed separately. Results showed that students’ epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge predicted the quantity, quality, and diversity of the different types of arguments the students constructed. In particular, students who held sophisticated epistemic beliefs about the structure of knowledge and exhibited relativelymore robustprior knowledge scores, produced arguments of greater quantity, better quality, and higher diversity than students with less sophisticated epistemic beliefs and low prior knowledge scores. Educational implications are discussed.

Shooting pheasants for sport: What does the death of Cecil tell us?

Abstract People hunt and kill animals for sport in many parts of the world. This raises many issues, some of which were brought to the fore when a lion Panthera leo, nicknamed Cecil, was killed by a trophy hunter in Zimbabwe in 2015. Cecil's death led to an unprecedented public reaction in Europe and the USA, and a debate in which opponents and supporters of sport hunting advanced different types of argument based on, inter alia, conservation, animal welfare and economics. The reaction to the Cecil event provides a perspective for scrutinizing sport hunting more widely. In this article we explore parallels between lion trophy hunting in Africa (which can involve either wild or captive‐bred lions) and shooting of common pheasant Phasianus colchicus, a sport which is largely sustained in the UK by the annual release of over 40 million captive‐bred birds. These two forms of sport hunting share common themes that are likely to be influential for the future of sport hunting more widely. These include the extent to which sport hunting maintains land for wildlife, and the impacts of intensification (e.g. the extent to which quarry are reared and released). Concern for the welfare of quarry animals is a dominant theme in debates about hunting. These themes are likely to be relevant for the conservation of many species hunted for sport. Increasing distaste for the killing of animals for sport in many countries may lead to the end of some types of sport hunting, with implications for both habitat and wildlife conservation. It would be both prudent and appropriate for conservationists to increase the urgency with which they seek alternative methods for preventing loss of biodiverse land to other uses. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Speech behaviour of Latvian Russian-speaking schoolchildren in argumentative texts

The article analyses the problems, which Russian-speaking schoolchildren in Latvia meet while creating written argumentative texts. The topicality of the article lies in the peculiarities of forming the schoolchildren’s linguistic personality in the diaspore during bilingual education. The author focuses on the main problems in the schoolchildren’s written speech and their reasons. The criteria of text content-analysis were as follows: 1) the level of argumentation autonomy; 2) the quality of the arguments; 3) the level of argument unfoldedness and using different types of arguments; 4) speech expressiveness and observing language norms. The ninth-graders’ text analysis led the author to the following conclusions: the compositions of most schoolchildren partly correspond with argumentative texts (in the aspect of their contents, structure, quantity and quality of arguments, means of thought development); they lack intertextual embeddings (the texts are “poor” in the sense aspect); in the speech behaviour there dominates an explicit I-communication (reflexive observations, egocentric direction of their behaviour), pragmatic, naked outline of facts even if the topic of the text motivates to verbalize emotions; there are a lot of language errors. The results of the research are based on analysis of 3296 ninth-graders, which the schoolchildren wrote at Russian language exam on finishing secondary school in 2016-2018. The results of this and further researches will allow the author to deeply investigate the process of forming primary and secondary linguistic personality of a Russian-speaking schoolchild in Latvia.

Made in Paris? Contested Regions and Political Regionalism during and after Peacemaking: Székelyföld and Banat in a Comparative Perspective

After World War I, when boundaries were redrawn in Europe, two territories were contested. Székelyföld, the eastern‐most part of the defunct dualist Hungary, was predominantly inhabited by Hungarians. Banat, which was to become a borderland of Greater Romania, was home to four significant ethnic groups (Serbian, Romanian, German and Hungarian) and a thriving Jewish community. These historically distinct regions were united with Hungary after the Settlement (Ausgleich) in 1867, but when borders were redrawn they were portrayed as specific entities within distinct national spaces. This article compares how different state and non‐state actors capitalized on the distinct nature of Banat and Székelyföld, how different types of arguments were deployed, and how proxies for a plebiscite (national councils, mass assemblies and demonstrations, deputations and memoranda to the Paris Peace Conference) were used to sway the decision to include these regions in Hungary or Romania. These efforts were part of a broader repertoire championing national goals, but in both cases the historical peculiarities and the pre‐1918 local social realities fueled regional identities that were distinct from Transylvanianism. The symbolic recognition of these regions as the most authentic Hungarian and Romanian ones during the mobilization of the masses around the Peace Conference reinforced Banat and Székely regionalism, which was then used by rival Hungarian and Romanian nationalist politicians to question the other nationality (distinguishing Székelys from Hungarians or emphasizing the loyalty to Hungary of certain Banat Romanian groups before 1918) leaving the Banat and Székelyföld entangled with different varieties of nationalism.