Types Of Arguments Research Articles

The ethically significant difference between dual use and slippery slope arguments, in relation to CRISPR-Cas9: philosophical considerations and ethical challenges

Biomedical research, on the one hand, contributes to important goals from generation of knowledge about the human body to the development and testing of therapeutics of all kinds. On the other hand, it can produce serious and sometimes unforeseeable consequences. In the ethical analysis of these two aspects of biomedical research, two important argumentative strategies play a major role. First, slippery slope arguments are used to warn of potential risks and to highlight knowledge-based limitations. Second, a dual-use problem describes the challenge that already established techniques can be used for both morally wrong and morally right purposes. These two argumentative strategies appear to share several similarities, which will be investigated in this article. For this purpose, the article will first provide clear working definitions for both types of argument. This lays the foundation for the further ethical analysis. In a second step, and in order to investigate the similarities and differences of the argumentative strategies with an example from current ethical debates, CRISPR-Cas9, a currently very promising tool of genome editing, will be examined. The extent to which the possible applications of this genome editing tool can be addressed by slippery slope arguments or the dual use problem will be investigated. For this purpose, selected studies involving the use of CRISPR-Cas9 will be examined. Based on this two-step, analytic and example-based comparison of slippery-slope argumentation and dual-use considerations, the article will detail the ethically relevant difference between the two argumentative strategies and at the same time contribute to the ongoing ethical debate about CRISPR-Cas9.

The Distinctiveness Problem of Analogical Arguments

The orthodox view holds that analogical arguments are a distinctive type of argument, while the eliminative view and its enhanced variant proposed in this paper contend that analogical arguments can be reducible to non-analogical arguments by eliminating the similarities proposition. This paper shows that the existing defense for the orthodox view fails to tackle the challenge posed by the eliminative view and its enhanced variant. The new defense for the distinctiveness of analogical arguments argues that an analogical argument is composed of both a conductive and principle-based argument. Consequently, analogical arguments remain irreducible, as the similarities proposition is not eliminated.

THE EFFECTS OF STUDENTS’ STANDPOINTS IN ARGUMENTATION REGARDING SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC ISSUES

This study examined the effects of students’ argumentation standpoints on their argumentation learning in the context of socio-scientific issues (SSIs). To that end, four kinds of argumentation standpoints were defined: affirmative standpoints, oppositional standpoints, multiple standpoints, and non-standpoints. These four kinds of standpoints allow for six possible combinations of any two of the different kinds of standpoints, which enabled us to conduct six kinds of 2-team format debates. The resulting differences of students’ four types of arguments (i.e., claims, warrants, rebuttals, and qualifiers) generated in six types of debates were examined. This study invited 208 10th-grade students to participate in a quasi-experimental research design. The results showed the affirmative group students demonstrated superior performance in terms of claims and warrants, and the oppositional group students had the largest number of rebuttals. The students in the debate with combinations of affirmative and oppositional groups exhibited the best performance regarding the generation of claims, warrants, and rebuttals. Based on the results, the present study concluded the standpoint had significant effects on the students’ argumentation learning, which suggests that teachers can investigate students’ standpoint on the learning topic of SSI and their prior knowledge about the standpoint before teaching. Keywords: argumentation learning, science education, socio-scientific issue, student standpoint.

GRAMMATISCHER REALISMUS: EINE ANALYSE ZUM WITTGENSTEIN´SCHEN BEGRIFF DER „GRAMMATIK“

This text deals with Wittgenstein's concept of “grammar”, which is one of the “key concepts” of his “Philosophical Investigations”. This term is interpreted here as a type of transcendental argument, i.e. as a regressive argument of the form: "In order to to explain why such and such (the observed - e.g. language as an institution) exists, one must presuppose that such and such (the unobserved – grammar) exists." The main thesis of the analysis proposed here is that Wittgenstein had to introduce in his philosophical investigations the concept of “grammar” as something predetermined in the perspective of “grammatical realism” to provide a theory of language with the aim of explaining the possibility of intersubjective language use, without having to fall back on any universal properties of language (in the sense of classical metaphysics).

Types of Argumentation in Editorials

This article explores argumentation in the genre of editorials. The objective was to determine the frequency of different types of argumentation used in this genre, which can shed light on the balance between objective and subjective elements. It was found that editorials exhibit a balance between strong and weak argumentation, with 41% and 55.6% respectively (3.4% accounted for insufficient argumentation). The dominance of weak argumentation can be attributed to the specific nature of editorials, which aim to present the editorial board’s opinion and influence readers. The genre under study is a powerful tool in media warfare and shaping societal beliefs and values. The minimal percentage of insufficient argumentation indicates a desire to refrain from overt manipulation. The relatively high percentage of strong argumentation in a genre categorized as ‘opinion’ is also explained by the functional aspect of editorials: since the genre transmits institutional opinions with the intention of influencing public views, it is necessary to maintain authority and a high level of credibility in the information provided. Strong arguments in this genre include references to facts, data from authoritative sources including statistics, experimental results, references to public opinion, and common sense. Weak arguments include personal opinions, speculations, predictions, intuition, references to sources that are not definitive authorities in the field, conclusions based on incomplete statistical data and facts with no obvious connection.

Some Benefits and Limitations of Modern Argument Map Representation

Argument maps represent some arguments more effectively than others. The goal of this article is to account for that variability, so that those who wish to use argument maps can do so with more foresight. I begin by identifying four properties of argument maps that make them useful tools for evaluating arguments. Then, I discuss four types of argument that are difficult to map well: reductio ad absurdum arguments, charges of equivocation, logical analogies, and mathematical arguments. The difficulties presented by these four types appear unrelated to one another, but I show that, in each case, the difficulty can be traced back to the use of metalinguistic reasoning. The need to represent a transition between object language and metalanguage can undermine one or more of the benefits that argument map representation would otherwise confer.

Argumentative strategies in the epideictic discourse of Elie Wiesel

The article presents the various rhetorical strategies used by Elie Wiesel in arguing his own position in a double dialogue: first with the audience, and indirectly with decision-making forces worldwide, secondly, with history. With discretion, but at the same time with argumentative force, he brings before the public the image of the suffering he experienced directly in the concentration camps and, constantly returning to the theme of people’s indifference towards it, he expresses his hope that the said experience will not be repeated in the future. He succeeds in persuading the audience and at the same time impressing them deeply both through various types of discernible arguments and through rhetorical strategies conducted with sophistication, discretion and detachment. His inclusion in Simon Sebag Montefiore’s anthology to which I have constantly referred to (Speeches that changed the world) is fully justified: the well-articulated, balanced argumentation, through the visible exploitation of ethical and affective resources, cannot, and it should not be left without echo in front of the two types of public to which it was addressed (contemporary and timeless).

Argument-based inductive logics, with coverage of compromised perception.

Formal deductive logic, used to express and reason over declarative, axiomatizable content, captures, we now know, essentially all of what is known in mathematics and physics, and captures as well the details of the proofs by which such knowledge has been secured. This is certainly impressive, but deductive logic alone cannot enable rational adjudication of arguments that are at variance (however much additional information is added). After affirming a fundamental directive, according to which argumentation should be the basis for human-centric AI, we introduce and employ both a deductive and-crucially-an inductive cognitive calculus. The former cognitive calculus, , is the deductive one and is used with our automated deductive reasoner ShadowProver; the latter, , is inductive, is used with the automated inductive reasoner ShadowAdjudicator, and is based on human-used concepts of likelihood (and in some dialects of , probability). We explain that ShadowAdjudicator centers around the concept of competing and nuanced arguments adjudicated non-monotonically through time. We make things clearer and more concrete by way of three case studies, in which our two automated reasoners are employed. Case Study 1 involves the famous Monty Hall Problem. Case Study 2 makes vivid the efficacy of our calculi and automated reasoners in simulations that involve a cognitive robot (PERI.2). In Case Study 3, as we explain, the simulation employs the cognitive architecture ARCADIA, which is designed to computationally model human-level cognition in ways that take perception and attention seriously. We also discuss a type of argument rarely analyzed in logic-based AI; arguments intended to persuade by leveraging human deficiencies. We end by sharing thoughts about the future of research and associated engineering of the type that we have displayed.

Generating Well-Typed Terms That Are Not “Useless”

Random generation of well-typed terms lies at the core of effective random testing of compilers for functional languages. Existing techniques have had success following a top-down type-oriented approach to generation that makes choices locally, which suffers from an inherent limitation: the type of an expression is often generated independently from the expression itself. Such generation frequently yields functions with argument types that cannot be used to produce a result in a meaningful way, leaving those arguments unused. Such "use-less" functions can hinder both performance, as the argument generation code is dead but still needs to be compiled, and effectiveness, as a lot of interesting optimizations are tested less frequently. In this paper, we introduce a novel algorithm that is significantly more effective at generating functions that use their arguments. We formalize both the "local" and the "nonlocal" algorithms as step-relations in an extension of the simply-typed lambda calculus with type and arguments holes, showing how delaying the generation of types for subexpressions by allowing nonlocal generation steps leads to "useful" functions.

The Caring Public Sphere: Reframing the Concept in an Era of Care Crises

This article reframes the public sphere concept by bringing it dialogue with feminist theories of care. Care ethics foreground vulnerability and interdependence, suggesting that vulnerability is a shared condition and that we are all dependent on each other in order to survive. This helps to rethink the role of the public sphere within the democratic system, as a space not only for opinion formation, but also for the development of citizens with the necessary skills and dispositions to take care of the issues discussed in public. A focus on care also aids in reconsidering public affairs as issues that are intimately connected with needs and vulnerabilities; listening as an act of care; the processing of emotions as a key function of the deliberative process; and personal testimony as an important type of argumentation. The concept of care further helps in refinining the universal access principle by highlighting the importance of intimate spaces, where participants feel safe to be vulnerable, and of how these multiple publics can be interconnected through mobilising relationships of interdependence. Finally, it allows us to consider “care work” for communication infrastructure, including both media technologies and people’s bodies, as a constitutive part of the public sphere.

Fourth-order neutral dynamic equations oscillate on timescales with different arguments

<p>The theory of neutral dynamic equations on timescales was based to unify the study of differential and difference equations. The article described several oscillating criteria that will be developed for fourth-order-neutral dynamic equations in the presence of various types of arguments on timescales. The goal was to establish all necessary conditions for the solutions of these models to be oscillatory. To construct observation values, ideas from [Y. Sui and Z. Han, Oscillation of second order neutral dynamic equations with deviating arguments on time scales, <italic>Adv. Differ. Equ.</italic>, 10 (2018)] were used. The research seeked to provide sufficient criteria that ensured the oscillation of solutions to these complex dynamic equations using a technique Riccati transformations generalized, emphasizing their importance in the study of oscillatory processes within various scientific and engineering contexts.</p>

Computational methods for singularly perturbed differential equations with advanced argument of convection-diffusion type

<p>This study investigates singularly perturbed differential equations through advanced convection-diffusion techniques. We employ a finite difference approach utilizing a piecewise uniform Shishkin-type mesh to tackle this problem. Our analysis demonstrates that the approach achieves virtually first-order convergence. Error estimates are computed using discrete norms, and numerical experiments are conducted to validate these theoretical results.</p>

Mapping Recent Universal and Particular Claims related to Jerusalem “As Capital of Israel” in Official Israeli and Palestinian Statements

A few years ago, the United States (US) officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and shortly afterwards the American diplomatic mission was relocated from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem/al-Quds, although internationally the decision was heavily criticized and met with protests on several levels. The US initiative was adopted as such by other countries supportive of US policy overseas, while Israeli and Palestinian politicians were given a new subject of confrontation at least at the level of speeches and official statements. The purpose of this research is to map universal and particular claims linked to the historic Jerusalem/al-Quds in official Israeli and Palestinian statements at the beginning of the 21st century in selected speeches or official statements of the following Israeli and Palestinian politicians: Naftali Bennet, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Meshaal by using discourse analysis in order to identify to which type of techniques and arguments the analysed political personalities resorted to in their speeches, in order to convince and influence their audience.

Identificarea și analiza recentelor revendicări universale și particulare legate de Ierusalim „drept capitală a Israelului” în declarații oficiale israeliene și palestiniene

A few years ago, the United States (US) officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and shortly afterwards the American diplomatic mission was relocated from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem/al-Quds, although internationally the decision was heavily criticized and met with protests on several levels. The US initiative was adopted as such by other countries supportive of US policy overseas, while Israeli and Palestinian politicians were given a new subject of confrontation at least at the level of speeches and official statements. The purpose of this research is to map universal and particular claims linked to the historic Jerusalem/al-Quds in official Israeli and Palestinian statements at the beginning of the 21st century in selected speeches or official statements of the following Israeli and Palestinian politicians: Naftali Bennet, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Meshaal by using discourse analysis in order to identify to which type of techniques and arguments the analysed political personalities resorted to in their speeches, in order to convince and influence their audience.

Chrześcijański argument „z sensu życia i świata” wobec buddyjskiego poglądu na rzeczywistość

The starting point of the article is the „argument from meaning” used in fundamental theology. The authors referring to it argue that only religion can give meaning to human life and the world. A man who does not want to run away from ultimate questions is faced with an alternative: faith in God or nihilism. Among religions, however, there is one that rejects belief in God and in any transcendence, and yet claims to be a source of meaning in life for its adepts. This religion is Buddhism. In this study, an attempt was made to confront the theological argumentation "from the meaning of life and the world" with the Buddhist worldview. The aim of such a confrontation is to locate potential weak points of this type of argumentation, which can help refine it so that it is also convincing for people outside Western culture.

Exploring Instructors’ Beliefs about and Practices in Promoting Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Writing Classes

The study investigated instructors’ beliefs about and practices in promoting students’ critical thinking (CT) in writing classes. A multiple case study design was employed to address the objective of the study. Three instructors were purposively selected from Wolkite University and participated in the study. The instruments used for data gathering were classroom observation, interview and document analysis. The data were qualitatively analyzed using a grounded theory approach- open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. The findings showed that the participants interpreted CT as the students’ abilities to use appropriate language and logically argue in their writing. The interview data further revealed that promoting students’ CT skill can be facilitated through providing them with an explicit introduction to CT, incorporating CT into their evaluation system, and giving them meaningful topics and adequate opportunities to practice writing. Writing activities such as argumentative, summary, and cause-effect types were noted to promote students’ critical thinking in writing classes. The study categorized and reported factors that interfered with teachers’ beliefs and their practices as student-related, instructor-related and situation-specific factors.

Ciceros Beweisführung aus der Wahrscheinlichkeit im Geldstreit zwischen dem Schauspieler Roscius und Fannius Chaerea

The paper explores the argumentation from probability in Cicero’s speech Pro Roscio comoedo, concerning the financial litigation between a famous Roman actor Quintus Roscius and an unknown businessman Fannius Chaerea. The Roman rhetorician had analysed the question of probability in his earlier dissertation De inventione, which influenced his art of persuasion. Because of lack of the strong proofs the arguments from probability played a great role in the defence of Roscius. Cicero used different types of likelihood arguments: syllogistic argument from probability, credibilia, incredibilia, verisimilia, as well as the arguments from ethos and kedros. He seems to be here aware of the Greek theory of argumentation present in the writings of Aristotle and Rhetorica ad Alexandrum. The Roman orator recalled often the truth and juxtaposed it with the probability. Cicero employed likelihood proofs in his speech, both in argumentation and in refutation.

Un marco para el razonamiento inductivo en la ciencia basada en modelos

This paper argues that the linguistic approach to analyzing induction, according to which induction is a type of inference or argument composed of statements or propositions, is unsuitable to account for scientific reasoning. Consequently, a novel approach to induction in model-based science is suggested. First, in order to show their adherence to the linguistic treatment of induction, two strategies are reviewed: (i) Carnap and Reichenbach’s attempts to justify induction and (ii) Norton’s recent material theory of induction. Second, three reasons are provided to support the claim that the linguistic treatment of induction is insufficient in accounting for model-based reasoning in science. Finally, a framework focused on models—rather than statements or propositions—is suggested to address induction in science. William Whewell’s theory of induction is briefly outlined as an example of a non-propositional treatment of induction that is consistent with model-based scientific practice.

‘Do I pray when listening to a recorded prayer?’: Approval and critique of digital practices in the Russian Orthodox Church

Within some religious collectivities, the use of digital media for rituals, gaining religious knowledge and community gatherings may be seen as a challenge to religious identity, thus provoking different attitudes. Drawing on practice theory of Schatzki, we analyse different attitudes to digital practices expressed by members of the Russian Orthodox Church as shaped by their perception of the affordances of digital media and practice normativity. Developing previous studies, we demonstrate that the normative assessment of digital practices becomes significant mainly for developing critical arguments. Approval of digital practices does not depend solely on religious norms, but also on users’ experience of leveraging digital media affordances. We show that acceptance and critique are not mutually exclusive, as both types of argument are intertwined.

Fight Against the Mandatory COVID-19 Immunity Passport on Twitter: Natural Language Processing Study.

To contain and curb the spread of COVID-19, the governments of countries around the world have used different strategies (lockdown, mandatory vaccination, immunity passports, voluntary social distancing, etc). This study aims to examine the reactions produced by the public announcement of a binding political decision presented by the president of the French Republic, Emmanuel Macron, on July 12, 2021, which imposed vaccination on caregivers and an immunity passport on all French people to access restaurants, cinemas, bars, and so forth. To measure these announcement reactions, 901,908 unique tweets posted on Twitter (Twitter Inc) between July 12 and August 11, 2021, were extracted. A neural network was constructed to examine the arguments of the tweets and to identify the types of arguments used by Twitter users. This study shows that in the debate about mandatory vaccination and immunity passports, mostly "con" arguments (399,803/847,725, 47%; χ26=952.8; P<.001) and "scientific" arguments (317,156/803,583, 39%; χ26=5006.8; P<.001) were used. This study shows that during July and August 2021, social events permeating the public sphere and discussions about mandatory vaccination and immunity passports collided on Twitter. Moreover, a political decision based on scientific arguments led citizens to challenge it using pseudoscientific arguments contesting the effectiveness of vaccination and the validity of these political decisions.