· Argumentation is the thought process used to develop and present arguments. It is closely related to critical thinking and reasoning. Argument skills belong among the essential 21 st century cognitive skills. We face complex issues that require careful, balanced reasoning to Argumentative Thinking: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Psychology and Argumentation. Lance Rips. Download PDF. Download Full PDF Package. This paper. A short summary of this paper. 37 Full PDFs related to this paper. READ PAPER Argumentative Thinking: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Psychology and Argumentation @article{RipsArgumentativeTA, title={Argumentative Thinking: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Psychology and Argumentation}, author={L. Rips}, journal={Informal Logic}, year={}, volume={29}, pages={} } L. Rips; Published
Flannery O Connor's A Good Man Is Hard To Find - Words | Cram
edu uses cookies to personalize content, tailor ads and improve the user experience. By argumentative thinking our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. To learn more, view our Privacy Policy. edu no longer supports Internet Explorer, argumentative thinking.
Argumentative thinking browse Academia. edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser. Log In with Facebook Log In with Google Sign Up with Apple.
Remember me on this computer. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Need an account? Click here to sign up. Download Free PDF. Argumentative Thinking: An Argumentative thinking to the Special Issue on Psychology and Argumentation, argumentative thinking.
Lance Rips. Download PDF Download Full PDF Package This paper, argumentative thinking. A short summary of this paper. Download PDF. Download Full PDF Argumentative thinking. Translate PDF. Argumentative Thinking: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Psychology and Argumentation LANCE J.
RIPS Weinberg College of Arts and Argumentative thinking Department of Psychology Swift Hall Sheridan Road Evanston, IL U. rips northwestern. leurs recherches sur la compréhension Thus, theories of argument can serve de la formation et du revirement des as models of the structure of justi- croyances des individus. The articles justifications des croyances, des in this issue illustrate all three of these méthodes pour diagnostiquer des connections, argumentative thinking.
Les articles dans ce numéro illustrent ces trois usages. Keywords: argumentation, fallacies, inference, learning, reasoning 1. For example, we sometimes need to choose which theory to adopt in scientific domains and which position to support in political controversies.
Our ability to come to conclusions in these uncertain contexts can vary in proficiency, especially from childhood to adulthood. Thus, psychologists have a © Lance J. Informal Logic, Vol. Rips stake in examining the mental skills that lead to beliefs, in evaluating these skills, and in trying to improve them.
Of course, factors from outside these models may also impact beliefs. They may give up their search too soon because of limitations of time and effort. They may have their search argumentative thinking by unconscious, automatic mental processes that throw them off course. Theories of argument in philosophy have had a less consistent influence on psychological investigations, but their effects appear in several strands of research. One such influence comes from theories of argument structure by FisherToulminand others.
Such structures indicate how the parts of an argument fit together in leading to a conclusion, and they provide potential models for the way people construct and remember lines of reasoning.
Reasoners may have an incorrect idea about the proper structure or purpose of arguments and therefore produce arguments that are incomplete or heavily biased e. A second influence from the philosophy of argument comes from discussions of fallacies e. Third, argumentative thinking, recent psychological research has examined two-person or multi-person argumentation, especially in the classroom.
Psychologists have explored these exchanges because they believe the experience of external argumentation provides a way to improve the quality of internal thought. Of course, the authors also rely on prior psychological theory, argumentative thinking, for example, argumentative thinking, theories of rational cognition Anderson,the social psychology of attitudes and persuasion e. For example, Rumelhart suggested that when we read simple stories, we remember their information in mental schemas that specify the basic parts of the narrative its setting, episodes, consequences, and so on and their interrelations.
Unlike most stories, however, topics in academic disciplines often have an argumentative structure that clusters around central issues, emphasizing the evidence that supports each of its sides. Textbooks may discuss, argumentative thinking, for example, argumentative thinking, alternative causes for a particular treaty or the costs and benefits argumentative thinking an economic intervention. To describe the structure of this material, researchers needed a way to characterize these informal arguments.
When students argumentative thinking to think about whether or not gas prices will influence car prices, whether marijuana should be legalized, why released prisoners return to crime, or whether nuclear power should be developed as an energy source, what kinds of reasoning should they provide? Traditional research in the psychology of reasoning seemed to be of little help for these purposes, since most of this work aims at describing how people handle short formal arguments, such as categorical syllogisms see Evans, et al, argumentative thinking.
Although instances of such arguments can be strung together in more extended proofs, the reasoning from educational contexts is typically non-deductive in character and multiple-sided. When students consider controversial issues, they not only need to muster reasons but also need to understand the parts these reasons play in the overall argument. According to Kuhnfor example, students need to distinguish the evidence presented in favor of a theory from the explanatory apparatus internal to the theory Kuhn, The evidence they can bring to bear is almost always hypothetical—evidence that they might be able to collect argumentative thinking they were in a position to do so.
Both studies suggest that the difficulties of separating evidence and explanation persist when students have the arguments at hand.
Errors in thinking Well-known studies of decision making by Tversky argumentative thinking Kahneman e. Argumentative Thinking: Introduction However, argumentative thinking proposal by Anderson suggested that a fruitful approach to cognition might be to regard mental processes as implementations argumentative thinking strategies that are themselves optimal, argumentative thinking, given mental and environmental constraints.
In this context, what seemed to be reasoning errors could sometimes be reinterpreted as approximations to correct thinking. Oaksford, Chater, and Hahn have applied this strategy to a wide range of problems, argumentative thinking, both those that have nominally deductive solutions and those that are non-deductive. Their analysis extends to traditional reasoning fallacies, such as slippery slope, as noted argumentative thinking. In the present issue, argumentative thinking, Hahn, Harris, and Corner use the same strategy in interpreting arguments from ignorance or appeals to authority.
This approach toward argumentation takes the strength of argumentative thinking inference to argumentative thinking the conditional probability of its conclusion given available evidence, where the evidence in some cases may be drawn from outside the argument itself. If you like a particular candidate, argumentative thinking, then the positive weight assigned to this source may produce a correlation among your beliefs in the issues she supports.
But would showing that a Bayesian model provides a good fit to these data demonstrate that this tendency is a reasonable one? Baron argues, to the contrary, that such tendencies can be due to wishful thinking or self-deception.
This question points to second. Because all the probabilities that go into a Bayesian model are subjective ones, the model does not guarantee accurate probabilities for the beliefs themselves, except under special conditions. If one goal of argument is the production of true beliefs, then Bayesian strategies and their cognitive approximations are limited in their ability to describe the correct argumentative procedure.
The Bayesian approach has advantages, especially in revealing the interactions among different types of information, argumentative thinking. Rips seem structural in character, and it may be more informative to treat them in structural terms than in Bayesian ones. For example, question begging seems problematic precisely because of its structure, and the implications of such fallacies for thinking may be more revealingly handled by the sorts of theories mentioned in the argumentative thinking section.
Two-person and multi-person argumentation Interest in multi-person argumentation again filters into psychology because of an interest in belief fixation, especially in the context of classroom learning see Chinn,for a review.
The intuition is that if students can learn to manage their ideas in argumentative interactions with fellow students, then they should be able to internalize these strategies in a way that will improve their thinking and learning e.
Most cognitive developmental psychologists are probably wary of the idea that people can simply absorb the lessons of an external debate by experiencing it.
Some internal understanding of argumentative thinking nature of argumentation is a likely prerequisite to profiting from external deliberations. In argumentative thinking issue, articles by Felton, argumentative thinking, Garcia-Mila, and Gilabert and by Goldstein et al, argumentative thinking. fall in this tradition, argumentative thinking, but they add some important qualifications to the notion that participating in argumentative discussions can benefit students.
Goldstein et al. Along related lines, Felton et al. By contrast, students who had to persuade their opponent showed no advantage over the controls. Felton et al. These findings also raise questions about which purposes are appropriate in different contexts of learning. Deciding on a policy may profit from cooperative strategies in argument, as might deciding on the conduct of collaborative research. But other goals, such as evaluating research findings or selecting the best theory for a set of data, might call for different, perhaps less cooperative, argumentative thinking, approaches.
Similarly, the advantages or disadvantages of a dispute might depend on whether the students have to defend their own point of view, defend a single point of view whether their own or notargumentative thinking, or defend rather than being able to compromise on a position.
We should also evaluate arguments by different argumentative thinking when they are addressed to different goals Walton, argumentative thinking,and this may carry over to the kinds of learning we should expect from students who participate in these arguments, argumentative thinking. Theories of argumentative thinking or multi-person arguments e.
But somewhat oddly, this influence has not penetrated very far into psychological or argumentative thinking studies. This two-part framework produced some theorems about the conditions under which opponents will reach agreement, and it suggested experiments on how closely real arguments conform to these conditions.
The experiments I did on this topic, however, all involved participants reading two-person arguments and making judgments about the commitments of the characters.
No attempt was made to apply the framework to classroom or other settings in order to diagnose or improve student practices.
Better connections between the theory of argument, its argumentative thinking ramifications, and its classroom applications are needed at argumentative thinking point, and perhaps this special issue will help foster these connections.
References Anderson, J. The adaptive character of thought, argumentative thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baron, J. Beliefs about thinking. In: J. Voss, D, argumentative thinking. Segal Eds. Myside bias in thinking about abortion.
How to Argue - Philosophical Reasoning: Crash Course Philosophy #2
, time: 9:43Argument Skills and How to Teach Them - Global Cognition
· Argumentation is the thought process used to develop and present arguments. It is closely related to critical thinking and reasoning. Argument skills belong among the essential 21 st century cognitive skills. We face complex issues that require careful, balanced reasoning to Argumentative Thinking: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Psychology and Argumentation. Lance Rips. Download PDF. Download Full PDF Package. This paper. A short summary of this paper. 37 Full PDFs related to this paper. READ PAPER Argumentative Thinking: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Psychology and Argumentation @article{RipsArgumentativeTA, title={Argumentative Thinking: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Psychology and Argumentation}, author={L. Rips}, journal={Informal Logic}, year={}, volume={29}, pages={} } L. Rips; Published
No comments:
Post a Comment