Justification Of Arguments Research Articles

On generalized notions of consistency and reinstatement and their preservation in formal argumentation

We present a conceptualization providing an original domain-independent perspective on two crucial properties in reasoning: consistency and reinstatement. They emerge as a pair of dual characteristics, representing complementary requirements on the outcomes of reasoning processes. Central to our formalization are two underlying parametric relations: incompatibility and reinstatement violation. Different instances of these relations give rise to a spectrum of consistency and reinstatement scenarios. As a demonstration of versatility and expressive power of our approach we provide a characterization of various abstract argumentation semantics which are expressed as combinations of distinct consistency and reinstatement constraints. Moreover, we conduct an investigation into preserving these essential properties across different reasoning stages. Specifically, we delve into scenarios where a labelling is derived from other labellings through a synthesis function, using the synthesis of argument justification as an illustrative instance. We achieve a general characterization of consistency preservation synthesis functions, while we unveil an impossibility result concerning reinstatement preservation, leading us to explore an alternative notion to ensure feasibility. Our exploration reveals a weakness in the traditional definition of argument justification, for which we propose a refined version overcoming this limitation.

Propriedades e relações: uma leitura pós-antropocêntrica

Abstract This article explores the philosophical postulates that are generating a whole series of transformations at the ethical, legal and political levels. In order to trace back the philosophical conditions of possibility of such change, it will study the scope of the theory of relations and the theory of properties. After its exhaustive analysis, it concludes that the theory of relations has a greater explanatory and operational scope than the theory of properties. After exploring the moral justification of sensocentrist and biocentrist arguments, it invites to the cultivation of non-destructive relations with any entity, strengthening a relational ontology as a way out of the current ecological crisis.

Argumentos y Explicaciones en De Caelo 2

The main concern of this paper is the problem of method in De Caelo (Book 2 and some related treatises), which has been recently invigorated by the supposition of Aristotle’s acceptance of two standards of justification. Whereas the φυσικῶς argument comes close to demonstrative knowledge, the εὐλόγως argument relies on more general assumptions and allegedly points towards argumentative justification (sometimes associated with dialectic). With a view to better understanding how empirical criteria for theories, teleological principles, and the resolution of difficulties are laid down to provide as much causal explanations as possible, we take side here in the debate about the very purpose of Aristotle’s using of justification by argument in scientific contexts. Our main claim is that although only reasonable proofs can be worked out in empirically underdetermined domains, this in no way amounts to endorsing an alternative to the norms of inquiry Aristotle upholds in natural science.

An analysis of policy-oriented jurisprudence at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY): A lemniscate of natural law, legal positivism and two liberalisms?

Policy-oriented jurisprudence was used to substantively support certain arguments rendered by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in two cases, namely those against Dražen Erdemović and Pavle Strugar. Based on its limited use, the policy-oriented approach was clearly not a popular source of justification for arguments at the ICTY. However, its inclusion in structures of argument reveals at least some support for it. In the process of suggesting possible reasons why this particular theoretical approach was utilised in the justification of argument, this article aims to briefly discuss the broader philosophical tensions visible in the reliance on policy-oriented jurisprudence at the ICTY, viz, natural law/legal positivism, on the one hand, and the ‘two liberalisms’, identified by Darryl Robinson as inherent to international criminal law (ICL), on the other hand. Given that policy-oriented jurisprudence’s inclusion in ICL judgments makes its future invocation in ICL literature and judgments possible, the purpose of delving into the broader theoretical paradigms involved is important for the emergence of a coherent jurisprudence.

The Metaphysics of Martinus: Exploring New Territory

The Danish thinker and mystic Martinus presented a comprehensive metaphysical system that explores and explains a wide range of topics, from the nature of consciousness and reality to an objective ethics and the structure of a just and fair society. Although a mystic, his argumentative justification for this system is not based on transcendent experiences but instead on rational arguments and methods and is thus broadly philosophical. This paper argues that since his views stand almost entirely untreated in contemporary philosophical research, it is of interest to examine them further, partly in the context of the history of ideas, but not least, given their unconventional nature, to provide fresh perspectives on the complex problems faced by contemporary philosophy. For example, the problem of decombination: To circumvent the difficult problem of consciousness, which challenges materialism, the position of cosmopsychism claims that the consciousness of the subject is constituted in a cosmic consciousness. How, then, to explain the differentiation or “decombination” of this cosmic consciousness into individual minds? Martinus has a triunic conception of the subject, and a theoretical metaphysical model based on this concept seems to be able to handle the decombination problem. It could be of explanatory benefit to examine other philosophical topics, both theoretical and practical, in light of Martinus’ views. Thus, this paper aims to introduce the views of Martinus into contemporary philosophical debates and argue the value of its further examination.

Analysis of The Students’ Argumentative Skills of Senior High School in Covid-19 Pandemic using Problem Based Learning in Static Fluid

This study aims to describe and analyze the students' argumentative skills in the subject of static fluid using the PBL model with the experimental method, after the lesson is given to students. This type of research is descriptive research.The subjects of this study are 34 students of XI MIPA 2 class of SMAN 1 Tanggul. The sampling technique used in this study was simple random sampling. The data was collected by using an essay question consisting of 8 questions which have been adjusted to the indicators of argumentation ability which include; argument evidence, counter argument evidence, refutation evidence, argument justification, counter argument justification, and rebuttal justification. The data analysis of this research used a descriptive approach by calculating the score. The results showed that the average argument evidence indicator is 1.5 with the high category, the counter argument evidence is 1.5 with the high category, the refutable evidence is 1,4 with the high category, the argument justification is 2.1 with the high category, the justification the counter argument is 2.1 with the high category, and the rebuttal justification is 2.1 with the high category. Based on the research that has been done, it can be concluded that the students' argumentative skills on each measured indicator are high

PROFILE OF STUDENTS' JUSTIFICATIONS OF MATHEMATICAL ARGUMENTATION

This study investigates the aspects that influence students' justification of the four types of arguments constructed by students, namely: inductive, algebraic, visual, and perceptual. A grounded theory type qualitative approach was chosen to investigate the emergence of the four types of arguments and how the characteristics of students from each type justify the arguments constructed. Four people from 75 students were involved in the interview after previously getting a test of mathematical argumentation. The results of the study found that three factors influenced students' justification for mathematical arguments, namely: students' understanding of claims, treatment given, and facts found in arguments. Claims influence the way students construct arguments, but facts in arguments are the primary consideration for students in choosing convincing arguments compared to representations. Also, factor treatment turns out to change students' decisions in choosing arguments, and these changes tend to lead to more formal arguments.

A teoria da argumentação jurídica de Neil Maccormick: dimensão normativa, raciocínio prático e justificação das decisões jurídicas

A intenção do presente estudo é explicitar o que é o Direito, na teoria de Neil MacCormick, por meio da discussão de suas categorias internas, que caracterizam a particularidade do raciocínio jurídico-prático. Ver-se-á que os conceitos de validade e invalidade das regras e princípios do Direito estão conectados a um modelo de justificação argumentativa, a partir do qual se depreende a unificação entre a produção e a interpretação das normas institucionais. A relação entre a moral e o direito é um aspecto central, em tal abordagem, por indicar as inadequações de uma leitura, exclusivamente, positivista das leis, no que pese seu estatuto institucional. Serão investigados os diversos métodos de interpretação das normas jurídicas e os fatores concretos de avaliação, ambos articulados pelos operadores do direito no procedimento de justificação de suas decisões. Por fim, como será mostrado, os precedentes judiciais podem ser aceitos, em todos os sistemas, como uma das fontes do direito, considerando a perspectiva de sua integridade. Isso porque as decisões, nos casos individuais, delimitam significados específicos às leis, gerando, assim, padrões universalizáveis na regulamentação futura das matérias envolvidas e de outras assemelhadas.

ARGUMENTATION OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ON PHYSICS INSTRUCTION BASED INQUIRY

Argumentation as the one of important skills must be included in the science learning. With argumentation skills, students can show their opinion include evidence and justification logically. Argumentation is important for students, but it seldom integrate in physic learning based inquiry. Participation of students who decrease in the learning can influence to argumentation’s ability of students. Physic learning based inquiry which include argumentation section can grow up the action students to give argumentation. Component of argumentation’s ability are evidence and justification for argument, counter argument, and rebuttal. This research is conduct for three meetings on the fluid static’s chapter in Senior High School of one Gambiran. Students’ argumentation skills measure from argumentation section and students’ worksheets has consisted component’s of argumentation. Purpose of this research is describe of students’ argumentation skills on physics instruction based inquiry. Result of this research is shown that students’ argumentation skills increase on last meeting of physics instruction. Participation of students give argumentation influenced by topic of the problems. Keywords: argumentation, participation, inquiry, physic, learningÂ

Enhancing Statement Evaluation in Argumentation via Multi-labelling Systems

In computational models of argumentation, the justification of statements has drawn less attention than the construction and justification of arguments. Significant losses of sensitivity or expressibility on statement statuses can be incurred by otherwise appealing formalisms. In order to reappraise statement statuses and, more generally, to support a uniform modelling of different phases of the argumentation process we introduce multi-labelling systems, a generic formalism devoted to represent reasoning processes consisting of a sequence of labelling stages. In the argumentation context, two families of multi-labelling systens, called argument-focused and statement-focused approach are identified and compared. Then they are shown to be able to encompass several prominent literature proposals as special cases, thereby enabling a systematic comparison evidencing their merits and limits. Further, we show that the proposed model supports tunability of statement justification by specifying a few alternative statement justification labellings, and we illustrate how they can be seamlessly integrated into different formalisms.

Towards a Discourse-Based Understanding of Sustainability Education and Decision Making

Based on the indeterminate character of the sustainability concept, a procedural and discursive understanding of sustainability decision making and corresponding approaches for education for sustainability (EFS) is proposed. A set of criteria for teaching strategies to promote sustainability decision making, taking into account the demands of deliberative democracy theory, are presented. These criteria (such as reason, complexity management, critical thinking, etc.) are used to argue for an educational approach that involves the development, justification, and weighting of arguments in combination with an instructional tool called Target-Mat. According to a consequent process orientation, structures for arguing or defining sustainability are not given as authorized standards. Suggestions from previous social discourse are only introduced as controversial pairings—for example, different definitions of sustainability. Examples of student decision-making processes are given to demonstrate the potential of the approach to encourage student reflection and cooperative negotiation that engenders a successive deepening of their argumentation.

On the graded acceptability of arguments in abstract and instantiated argumentation

The paper develops a formal theory of the degree of justification of arguments, which relies solely on the structure of an argumentation framework, and which can be successfully interfaced with approaches to instantiated argumentation. The theory is developed in three steps. First, the paper introduces a graded generalization of the two key notions underpinning Dung's semantics: self-defense and conflict-freeness. This leads to a natural generalization of Dung's semantics, whereby standard extensions are weakened or strengthened depending on the level of self-defense and conflict-freeness they meet. The paper investigates the fixpoint theory of these semantics, establishing existence results for them. Second, the paper shows how graded semantics readily provide an approach to argument rankings, offering a novel contribution to the recently growing research programme on ranking-based semantics. Third, this novel approach to argument ranking is applied and studied in the context of instantiated argumentation frameworks, and in so doing is shown to account for a simple form of accrual of arguments within the Dung paradigm. Finally, the theory is compared in detail with existing approaches.

The Effect of Argumentative Text Pattern Teaching on Success of Constituting Argumentative Text Elements

The aim of this study is to view how argumentative text pattern teaching influences constituting argumentative essayelements. The study was performed according to one-group pre-test post-test design. The study was carried out inspring term of 2017-2018 academic year and it lasted for five weeks. 33 prospective teachers who took the course ofText Producing Techniques participated in the study. The data of study were collected through 132 argumentativeessays which prospective teachers wrote and Argumentative Text Elements Rubric to evaluate these. The results ofthe research are as follows: Quite few students included argumentative essay elements before argumentative essaypattern teaching and none of the students wrote justification for counter argument. It was determined that 66,7% ofthe students didn’t write data, 81,8% of them didn’t write counter argument, 87,9% did not write justification forcounter argument, 84,8% did not write rebuttal of counter argument and 48,5% did not write conclusion. At the thirdstudy, number of successful students increased on the basis of all elements. However, the majority of students havereached a partially successful level. At the post test, most of the students achieved successful level on the basis of allelements except refuting counter argument. Significant differences on behalf of the post-test were determinedbetween pre-test and post-test scores at all of the argumentative essay elements.

К вопросу о методике бухгалтерского учета государственной помощи

Methodological issues of accounting of economic transactions and events are most directly related to the degree of disclosure and reliability of accounting (financial) reporting data with respect to the resources of the organization. The author believes that not always and not all information should be presented to a wide range of users. In particular, we are talking about state aid, which comes to our legal entities. Th e article provides justification for such arguments and suggests a version of the changes necessary to introduce into the current methodology of accounting for state aid organizations.

A preliminary framework for measuring deference in rights reasoning

This article proposes a methodology for measuring how deferential judicial reasoning is in human rights cases. The proposed framework ranks four strategies of exercising deference—rights definition, standard of justification, burden of justification and cogency of arguments—along a triadic scale of not deferential, moderately deferential and highly deferential. The proposed framework is designed for common law jurisdictions that embrace a two-stage approach to rights adjudication in which courts initially ask whether there has been a prima facie limitation of rights and then, if so, proceed to assess that limitation using a proportionality test. The framework provides both the criteria for qualitative evaluations of, and the methodological foundation for quantitative studies of, the increasingly important phenomenon of judicial deference.

STUDI TENTANG KETERAMPILAN PEMBENTUKAN KLAIM MENGENAI ISU SOSIO-SAINTIFIK SISWA SEKOLAH MENENGAH ATAS PADA KELOMPOK BUDAYA SUNDA

ABSTRACT This case study purposes to investigate Sundanese high school student 11th grade argumentation skills about socio-scientific issue based on gender and family caring pattern. Specifically, this qualitative research explores the quality of Sundanese student’ claim-forming and evidence-supplying in an argumentation process. Research instrument were given to 44 year-11 students, argumentation worksheets were used to get student’ written argumentation skills (WAS) data; semi-structured interview were used to get student’ oral argumentation skills (OAS) data; questionnaire and interview were used to get family caring pattern and family gender awareness data; furthermore, field note were used as data triangulation tool. Student’ argumentation skills were determined by justification of argument based on four-scale rubric. Inductive analysis was used to examine the data. Most Sundanese student had capable to form an argument with a simple justification; student’ OAS better than WAS relatively; and other result of this study shows that no argumentation skills significance difference between boys and girl. The findings suggest several factors influencing Sundanese student’ argumentation skills such as freedom of opinion-forming in family life, student’ role in family, the language ability to articulate ideas, and cultural influences. Methodological issues arising from the study and implications for teaching and assessment are discussed.

There is No Pill for Deliberation: Explaining Discourse Quality in Post‐conflict Communities

AbstractRecent experimental research suggests that ordinary citizens are capable of behaving in a democratic and deliberative way in controversial political debates, when given the right instructions. In this study, we test the potential of such instructions in contexts where levels of polarization, conflict and social marginalization are high. Using a randomized controlled experimental design, we test the effect of encouraging members of marginalized and conflict‐affected communities in Colombia to live up to the deliberative ideal, including free participation, mutual respect, justification of arguments, and contributing to the common good. Results indicate that deliberative instructions have a positive effect on intervention levels, but fail to increase discourse quality. We also find that socio‐economic differences (especially education and gender), as well as inter‐group trust dynamics, explain much of the variation in discourse quality. Promoting deliberative democracy under unfavorable conditions might therefore require a combination of short‐term policy measures aimed at increasing communal trust, long‐term efforts to improve schooling levels, and ensuring constraint‐free participation. There is, however, no treatment yet that can ensure deliberation success.

Überreden und Überzeugen

Abstract The word ‘persuasion’ can be used in two different ways. It can either implicate a process of changing someone’s belief or action without any argumentative justification or, to the contrary, indicate that the changes are indeed a result of argumentative discourse. These two different uses are part of a conceptual development in the history of philosophy. Nowadays they are often placed in contrast to each other, whereby persuasion in philosophy as a non-argumentative act is taken as doubtful and even unsound. In the following paper I argue that the two types of processes should not be conceived of as incompatible, taking some notes from Wittgenstein’s On Certainty as an argumentative source. I will show that persuading as a rational practice is based on the possibility of persuasion as a process of inculcation. These processes can help illuminate the notions of good grounds, reasons and persuasion. In contrast to the common perspective, I will show that they are actually the normal case regarding interaction between humans and thus fundamentally provide the possibility of an argumentative practice of giving and accepting reasons. I conclude that the primacy of argumentative persuasion in relation to inculcation needs to be reversed and the common understanding of human beings as genuine rational acting beings needs to be questioned.

Rhetoric Meets Rational Argumentation Theory

AbstractThe theory of rhetoric is recognised and widely used in a number of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences. It is therefore slightly surprising that it has not gained an important footing in jurisprudence. It is often argued that rhetoric and argumentative justification are clearly different issues. However, the present paper argues that they are in fact two aspects of argumentation and that the theory of rhetoric may be used also in the context of legal reasoning.

The illusion of argument justification.

Argumentation is an important way to reach a new understanding. Strongly caring about an issue, which is often evident when dealing with controversial issues, has been shown to lead to biases in argumentation. We suggest that people are not well calibrated in assessing their ability to justify a position through argumentation, an effect we call the illusion of argument justification. Furthermore, we find that caring about the issue further clouds this introspection. We first show this illusion by measuring the difference between ratings before and after producing an argument for one's own position. The strength of the illusion is predicted by the strength of care for a given issue (Study 1). The tacit influences of framing and priming do not override the effects of emotional investment in a topic (Study 2). However, explicitly considering counterarguments removes the effect of care when initially assessing the ability to justify a position (Study 3). Finally, we consider our findings in light of other recent research and discuss the potential benefits of group reasoning.