Informal Arguments Research Articles

Content Externalism, Truth Conditions, and Truth Values

Yli-Vakkuri (2018) offers a deductive argument for Content Externalism that primarily appeals to two main principles he says should be adopted by all parties to the debate. Sawyer (2018) criticizes this argument on the grounds that there are internalist theories that are not consistent with the two principles he offers, although she takes no issue with the derivation itself. While Sawyer’s critique is insightful and largely correct, there is a more fundamental problem with the original argument. The formal proof given in the original paper begs the question. The informal argument is enthymematic, and all the possible valid reconstructions require assumptions that can be legitimately rejected by content internalists. This is significant to point out as someone might think that the internalist views that Sawyer says are not consistent with the two principles that drive Yli-Vakkuri’s argument can be successfully challenged and thereby the original argument defended.

UNIVERSES AND UNIVALENCE IN HOMOTOPY TYPE THEORY

AbstractThe Univalence axiom, due to Vladimir Voevodsky, is often taken to be one of the most important discoveries arising from the Homotopy Type Theory (HoTT) research programme. It is said by Steve Awodey that Univalence embodies mathematical structuralism, and that Univalence may be regarded as ‘expanding the notion of identity to that of equivalence’. This article explores the conceptual, foundational and philosophical status of Univalence in Homotopy Type Theory. It extends our Types-as-Concepts interpretation of HoTT to Universes, and offers an account of the Univalence axiom in such terms. We consider Awodey’s informal argument that Univalence is motivated by the principle that reasoning should be invariant under isomorphism, and we examine whether an autonomous and rigorous justification along these lines can be given. We consider two problems facing such a justification. First, there is a difference between equivalence and isomorphism and Univalence must be formulated in terms of the former. Second, the argument as presented cannot establish Univalence itself but only a weaker version of it, and must be supplemented by an additional principle. The article argues that the prospects for an autonomous justification of Univalence are promising.

The ability to evaluate arguments in scientific texts: Measurement, cognitive processes, nomological network, and relevance for academic success at the university.

BackgroundThe evaluation of informal arguments is a key component of comprehending scientific texts and scientific literacy.AimThe present study examined the nomological network of university students’ ability to evaluate informal arguments in scientific texts and the relevance of this ability for academic success.SampleA sample of 225 university students from the social and educational sciences participated in the study.MethodsJudgements of plausibility and the ability to recognize argumentation fallacies were assessed with a novel computer‐based diagnostic instrument (Argument Judgement Test; AJT).ResultsThe items of the AJT partly conform to a 1‐PL model and test scores were systematically related to epistemological beliefs and verbal intelligence. Item‐by‐item analyses of responses and response times showed that implausible arguments were more difficult to process and correct responses to these items required increased cognitive effort. Finally, the AJT scores predicted academic success at university even if verbal intelligence and grade point average were controlled for.ConclusionThese findings suggest that the ability to evaluate arguments in scientific texts is an aspect of rationality, relies on reflective processes, and is relevant for academic success.

Addressing Common Misconceptions with Informal Arguments

This activity allows students to build their own understanding of what it means to develop a solid argument.

Necesidades de formación del profesorado de Lengua y Literatura para el desarrollo de la argumentación informal en el comentario de texto

Este estudio se enmarca en un proyecto de I+D+i sobre la formación del profesorado de español como lengua materna y extranjera en la didáctica de la argumentación informal implicada en el comentario de texto, el cual ha sido patrocinado por el Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad de Gobierno de España. El objetivo general de la presente investigación consiste en profundizar en las demandas de formación y de materiales didácticospor parte de este profesorado para el desarrollo de la argumentación informal en el comentario de texto. La investigación se centra en una metodología cualitativa de diseño interpretativo-fenomenológico para explorar los significados que explican las demandas aludidas, por medio del instrumento de la entrevista realizada a 34 docentes, que han sido seleccionados como informantes clave en atención a su perfil y experiencia profesional. El proceso de análisis se ha llevado a cabo mediante la reducción de la información obtenida en un mapa de significados, a través de un sistema inductivo de categorización y codificación de los datos realizado por el programa de análisis cualitativo Atlas.ti 7.Finalmente, el diálogo propiciado a través de las entrevistas ha revelado argumentos de gran interés sobre las demandas de formación y de materiales didácticos que este profesorado formula con razones causales y con la voluntad de autentificar su desarrollo profesional competente en didáctica de la argumentación informal en el comentario de textos. This study is part of an R+D+i project on the training of teachers of Spanish as a first and foreign language in the didactics of informal argumentation involved in text commentary, which was sponsored by the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness of the Government of Spain. The general aim of this research consists of delving into the demands of training and teaching materials for the development of informal argumentation when doing textcommentary. The research adopts a qualitative methodology with an interpretative-phenomenological design in order to explore the meanings that explain the aforementioned demands. 34 teachers were selected, and later interviewed, as key informants according to their profile and professional experience. Data analysis was conducted by means of the reduction of the information obtained in a map of meanings, through an inductive system of data categorisationand codification carried out with the qualitative analysis program Atlas.ti 7. Finally, the dialogue fostered through the interviews revealed arguments of great interest regarding the demands of training and teaching materials, which these teachers formulate with causal reasons and with the will to authenticate their competent professional development in the didactics of informal argumentation in text commentary.

How to improve argumentation comprehension in university students: experimental test of a training approach

The ability to comprehend informal arguments is essential for scientific literacy but students often lack structural knowledge about these arguments, especially when the arguments are more complex. This study used a pre-post-test design with a follow-up 4 weeks later to investigate whether a computerised training in identifying structural components of informal arguments can improve university students’ competences to understand complex arguments. The training was embedded in a constructivist learning environment and contents were based on the Toulmin model of argument structure, according to which arguments can be deconstructed into several functional components: Claim, datum, warrant, backing evidence, and rebuttal. Being able to identify the warrant is central for scientific literacy, as the warrant determines whether a conclusion is justified given the data. Results indicate that training in argument structure did not generally improve performance for all students and argument types, but that it was particularly helpful for identifying more complex arguments with a less typical structure and relational aspects between key components (i.e. warrants). High achieving students profited the most from this intervention, and the intervention was also helpful for students with high pretest accuracy scores. Our results suggest that interventions to foster argumentation skills should be included into the curriculum and these interventions should be designed to match learners’ ability level.

Truth, Predication and a Family of Contingent Paradoxes

In truth theory one aims at general formal laws governing the attribution of truth to statements. Gupta’s and Belnap’s revision-theoretic approach provides various well-motivated theories of truth, in particular T* and T#, which tame the Liar and related paradoxes without a Tarskian hierarchy of languages. In property theory, one similarly aims at general formal laws governing the predication of properties. To avoid Russell’s paradox in this area a recourse to type theory is still popular, as testified by recent work in formal metaphysics by Williamson and Hale. There is a contingent Liar that has been taken to be a problem for type theory. But this is because this Liar has been presented without an explicit recourse to a truth predicate. Thus, type theory could avoid this paradox by incorporating such a predicate and accepting an appropriate theory of truth. There is however a contingent paradox of predication that more clearly undermines the viability of type theory. It is then suggested that a type-free property theory is a better option. One can pursue it, by generalizing the revision-theoretic approach to predication, as it has been done by Orilia with his system P*, based on T*. Although Gupta and Belnap do not explicitly declare a preference for T# over T*, they show that the latter has some advantages, such as the recovery of intuitively acceptable principles concerning truth and a better reconstruction of informal arguments involving this notion. A type-free system based on T# rather than T* extends these advantages to predication and thus fares better than P* in the intended applications of property theory.

Cross-Cultural Differences in Informal Argumentation: Norms, Inductive Biases and Evidentiality

AbstractCross-cultural differences in argumentation may be explained by the use of different norms of reasoning. However, some norms derive from, presumably universal, mathematical laws. This inconsistency can be resolved, by considering that some norms of argumentation, like Bayes theorem, are mathematical functions. Systematic variation in the inputs may produce culture-dependent inductive biases although the function remains invariant. This hypothesis was tested by fitting a Bayesian model to data on informal argumentation from Turkish and English cultures, which linguistically mark evidence quality differently. The experiment varied evidential marking and informant reliability in argumentative dialogues and revealed cross-cultural differences for both independent variables. The Bayesian model fitted the data from both cultures well but there were differences in the parameters consistent with culture-specific inductive biases. These findings are related to current controversies over the universality of the norms of reasoning and the role of normative theories in the psychology of reasoning.

Percepción docente sobre costumbres metodológicas de argumentación informal en el comentario de texto

This study explores Spanish secondary-school language and literature teachers’ perceptions of their habits when teaching the development of informal argumentation in textual commentary. Using a qualitative methodology with an interpretive-phenomenological design to shed light on this aim, the teachers were interviewed about this question. Then, hermeneutic units were created from the reported data using a cyclical process of segmentation, codification, and conceptualization. These were analysed using the Atlas. ti program to establish comprehensive maps of the studied reality. The results of this research show that: teachers choose a variety of texts for preparing argumentative commentaries, favouring literary and journalistic ones with less interest in multimedia sources; negotiating text choice with students is problematic due to the low quality of the resources students provide; there is a tendency towards written commentary with limited oral interaction, despite teachers’ awareness of the learning benefits that speech offers in the composition, revision and evaluation process through students’ flexibility and well-founded cooperation in the learning processes. There is a strong preference for written feedback as this provides an individualised record of errors for further analysis and discursive evaluation follows guidelines and rubrics from handbooks, promoting self-evaluation and student co-evaluation with a variety of instruments. In conclusion, comparing these habits with the competence-based educational approach reveals the academicist survival of the philological canon in text selection and the cliche of commentary as an individual written practice that is more reconstructive than constructive, which hinders the democratic interest in promoting students’ critical thinking, media literacy in the classroom, and oral practices in the process of teaching informal argumentation in text commentary.

Percepción docente sobre costumbres metodológicas de argumentación informal en el comentario de texto

Percepción docente sobre costumbres metodológicas de argumentación informal en el comentario de texto

통계적 논증활동에서 나타나는 반박의 유형 및 상호작용 패턴과 통계적 추론 수준의 관계 분석

Informal statistical inference occurring in group interaction for statistical tasks is closely related to the process of informal argumentation. Among many activities in the group discussion, rebuttal is one of the significant elements of argumentation. This study conducted experiments regarding group discussion activities using tasks comparing two data sets and the analyzing of students discourse. We subsequently coded the conversations to identify discourse move, classified each statement according to types of the rebuttal, and measured the students' level of statistical inference. We therefore observed that the rebuttal against thesis mainly appeared in responsive interactions, and the rebuttal against ground appeared in elaborative interactions stimulating the statistical inference of the participants. We noted that the level of statistical inference even got lower in the discussion containing responsive interaction including only the rebuttal against thesis. On the other hand, in the discussion containing elaborative interaction accompanied by the rebuttal against ground, even errors in the arguments were identified and corrected improved as well as the improvement in the level of statistical inference.

How Computational Tools Can Help Rhetoric and Informal Logic with Argument Invention

This paper compares the features and methods of the two leading implemented systems that offer a tool for helping a user to find or invent arguments to support or attack a designated conclusion, the Carneades Argumentation System and the IBM Watson Debater tool. The central aim is to contribute to the understanding of scholars in informal logic, rhetoric and argumentation on how these two software systems can be useful for them. One contribution of the paper is to explain to these potential users how the two tools are applicable to the task of inventing arguments by using some simple illustrative examples. Another is to redefine the structure of argument invention as a procedure.

Improving students’ mathematical critical thinking through rigorous teaching and learning model with informal argument

The purpose of this study is to analyze an improvement of students’ mathematical critical thinking (CT) ability in Real Analysis course by using Rigorous Teaching and Learning (RTL) model with informal argument. In addition, this research also attempted to understand students’ CT on their initial mathematical ability (IMA). This study was conducted at a private university in academic year 2015/2016. The study employed the quasi-experimental method with pretest-posttest control group design. The participants of the study were 83 students in which 43 students were in the experimental group and 40 students were in the control group. The finding of the study showed that students in experimental group outperformed students in control group on mathematical CT ability based on their IMA (high, medium, low) in learning Real Analysis. In addition, based on medium IMA the improvement of mathematical CT ability of students who were exposed to RTL model with informal argument was greater than that of students who were exposed to CI (conventional instruction). There was also no effect of interaction between RTL model and CI model with both (high, medium, and low) IMA increased mathematical CT ability. Finally, based on (high, medium, and low) IMA there was a significant improvement in the achievement of all indicators of mathematical CT ability of students who were exposed to RTL model with informal argument than that of students who were exposed to CI.

Esteban Manuel de Villegas, poeta doctus y filólogo entre Inquisición y Mecenazgo

As result of an informal argument on free will held in 1644, Esteban Manuel de Villegas (1589-1669) was accused by the Inquisition and eventually condemned to banishment after an eight-year process (1651-1659). Along the judicial process, Villegas devoted great efforts to the commentary and emendatio of classical texts, which he gathered in the unpublished Dissertationes criticae. Villegas wrote several letters addressed to Lorenzo Ramírez de Prado, conspicuous member of King Philip IV’s administration that Villegas had designed as his potential patron. Two among such letters are edited here, together with the Latin text where Villegas comments a passage by Ausonius. Villegas is more than willing to display what he deems his gifts as a scholar, and he also presents a vehement defence of Catholic orthodoxy: he is convinced that Spaniards in general and himself in particular excel in the task of textual criticism far more than famous protestant humanists, thanks to some unexplainable “genius”.

Quality of preservice teachers argumentation in socioscientific issues context

This study aimed to explore preservice teachers’ (PTs) argumentation quality during socioscientific issues (SSI) based classroom discussions. The participants of the study were 20 PTs from the Department of Elementary Education at a large, research oriented public university in Turkey. Qualitative case study method was used in this study. The study covered four socioscientific issues (food additives, alternative energy sources, climate change, and the industrial revolution). Each issue was discussed in the classroom and each discussion was video recorded. Video recordings were transcribed verbatim and used as data source. Classroom discussions verbatim transcribes were analyzed by using a modified version of Toulmin’s argumentation pattern (TAP) model. The modified approach was found to be more conducive to informal argumentation patterns, in order to analyze preservice teachers’ use of claims, grounds, warrants, backings, and rebuttals that support their debate positions, as well as their ability to use evidence-based reasoning, form coherent lines of reasoning, and use of correct (appropriate) evidence. Results of the study revealed that preservice teachers’ use of evidence to support conflicting ideas tended to increase as their use of incorrect or insufficient use of evidence decreased through the present study.

A Simple, Possibly Correct LR Parser for C11

The syntax of the C programming language is described in the C11 standard by an ambiguous context-free grammar, accompanied with English prose that describes the concept of “scope” and indicates how certain ambiguous code fragments should be interpreted. Based on these elements, the problem of implementing a compliant C11 parser is not entirely trivial. We review the main sources of difficulty and describe a relatively simple solution to the problem. Our solution employs the well-known technique of combining an LALR(1) parser with a “lexical feedback” mechanism. It draws on folklore knowledge and adds several original aspects, including a twist on lexical feedback that allows a smooth interaction with lookahead; a simplified and powerful treatment of scopes; and a few amendments in the grammar. Although not formally verified, our parser avoids several pitfalls that other implementations have fallen prey to. We believe that its simplicity, its mostly declarative nature, and its high similarity with the C11 grammar are strong informal arguments in favor of its correctness. Our parser is accompanied with a small suite of “tricky” C11 programs. We hope that it may serve as a reference or a starting point in the implementation of compilers and analysis tools.

The roles of formalisation artefacts in students’ formalisation processes

ABSTRACTTranslating an informal mathematical argument into a proof which conforms to the norms of the mathematical community in which it is situated is a non-trivial task. Here we discuss several types of products, other than the initial informal argument and its direct formalisation, which we observed students generating in a master’s level analysis course in the United States during their attempts to formalise a researcher-generated informal argument. We refer to these as formalisation artefacts and discuss the various roles they play relative to students’ attempts to formalise informal arguments.

Effects of Text Content and Beliefs on Informal Argument Evaluation

ABSTRACTWe examined the influence of reading a one-sided text on informal argument evaluation. After reporting initial beliefs in a separate online prescreening, subjects with polarized beliefs read a belief-consistent or -inconsistent text about the benefits of spanking children as a means of discipline. After reading, subjects reported their beliefs and judged the soundness of a series of one-sentence informal arguments that made belief-consistent or -inconsistent claims. Subjects were more likely to accept arguments as sound when the claims were consistent with the position of the text they read and reject them as unsound when the claims were inconsistent with the text position. Process mediation modeling revealed that text position (pro vs. con) influenced reasoning biases both directly and indirectly via the extent to which they experienced belief change. These findings suggest that informal reasoning biases can be malleable and are influenced by both text content and by subjects’ beliefs at the time of reasoning.

From Narrativism to Pragmatism

Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen’s Postnarrativist Philosophy of Historiography is a major work in the philosophy of history, one that seeks to conceive historiographies not as concerned to represent (“re-present”) the past but rather to propose ways of regarding it. To do this requires replacing narrative as the key element in the philosophy of history with the idea that historiographies are informal arguments that propose and defend a thesis about how events or entities of the past should be viewed. This re-orientation in how to view historiography makes it possible to see it as a rational enterprise in which its claims and counterclaims can be rationally assessed. The book is remarkably successful in achieving its goal, but along the way it neglects to address new questions about narrative as a form of argument, and in the end lacks full faith in its pragmatist heart by insisting that standards of rationality are universal and merely given rather than discipline—and culturally—specific, hard won achievements accomplished by historians themselves.

How to Cure Narrativism with Rational Evaluation

Over the past years, narrativism has ceased to be the dominant research program in the philosophy of history and several authors have started to develop new research agendas. In his recent book, Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen presents an original postnarrativist philosophy of history as an attempt to surpass narrativism. Although he adopts what he calls the narrativist insight, he tries to avoid the problems of narrativism by focusing on epistemic questions. He is convinced that the historical enterprise is rational and also that historical works contain informal arguments which should be evaluated by rational standards. His postnarrativism is an ambitious project deserving close attention. Nevertheless, I try to show that his innovative approach shares some common features with a fairly conventional understanding of history. In conclusion I argue that it would be preferable to rethink some of the epistemic criteria he relies on rather than to embrace those which were used within the more conventional accounts.