Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (2)
- Objectivity (2)
- Ambiguity (1)
- Argument structure (1)
- Argumentation (1)
-
- Bias (1)
- Cartwright (1)
- Context (1)
- Critical thinking (1)
- Discourse analysis (1)
- EBP (1)
- Education (1)
- Emotion (1)
- Holism (1)
- Infinity (1)
- Informal logic (1)
- Intuitive and formal reasoning (1)
- Model (1)
- Model merging (1)
- Narrative argument (1)
- Narrative positioning (1)
- Neuroscience (1)
- Nonstandard analysis (1)
- Paradox (1)
- Pedagogy (1)
- Practical reasoning (1)
- Psychology (1)
- RCT (1)
- Reasoning (1)
- Rhetoric (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Education
Unpacking The Narrative-Argumentative Conundrum: Story Credibility Revisited, Jarmila Bubikova-Moan
Unpacking The Narrative-Argumentative Conundrum: Story Credibility Revisited, Jarmila Bubikova-Moan
OSSA Conference Archive
Building on a view of both narration and argumentation as dynamic concepts, the aim of this paper is to argue that story credibility remains a core issue in the debate on the argumentative quality of narratives, yet one that the dynamic perspective has not interrogated in sufficient detail. To illustrate, I will draw on empirical examples from research interviews with adult migrants to Norway on their learning and using Norwegian as a second language.
Developing Critical Thinking With Rhetorical Pedagogy, Elizabeth Ismail
Developing Critical Thinking With Rhetorical Pedagogy, Elizabeth Ismail
OSSA Conference Archive
The development of critical thinking skills is emphasized as a fundamental attribute of successful graduates (Ritchhart & Perkins, 2005; Willingham, 2008). Some critical thinking textbooks inform students to “see beyond the rhetoric to the core idea being stated” (Moore and Parker, 2009, p. 21); however, other scholars have begun to suggest that rhetoric is intrinsically interrelated to critical thinking and plays a pivotal role in everyday interactions (Saki, 2016). This paper explores the later.
Commentary On Daniel Cohen And Katharina Stevens' "Virtuous Vices: On Objectivity And Bias In Argumentation", Tone Kvernbekk
Commentary On Daniel Cohen And Katharina Stevens' "Virtuous Vices: On Objectivity And Bias In Argumentation", Tone Kvernbekk
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Emotional Legal Arguments And A Broken Leg, Rubens Damasceno-Morais
Emotional Legal Arguments And A Broken Leg, Rubens Damasceno-Morais
OSSA Conference Archive
We intend to examine ways that emotions may be intertwined within argumentative legal discourses. From the transcript of a brief trial in a Court of Appeal in Brazil we have the opportunity to observe how the emotional and rational reasoning live together in a deliberation among magistrates. “The leg broken case” allow us to examine how judges define the value of compensation to be paid in cases of moral damage. We show that not only technical arguments are the compounds of one decision; subjectivity is also important in that legal context. We would yet confirm what jurists and …
Exploring Argumentation, Objectivity, And Bias: The Case Of Mathematical Infinity, Ami Mamolo
Exploring Argumentation, Objectivity, And Bias: The Case Of Mathematical Infinity, Ami Mamolo
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper presents an overview of several years of my research into individuals’ reasoning, argumentation, and bias when addressing problems, scenarios, and symbols related to mathematical infinity. There is a long history of debate around what constitutes “objective truth” in the realm of mathematical infinity, dating back to ancient Greece (e.g., Dubinsky et al., 2005). Modes of argumentation, hindrances, and intuitions have been largely consistent over the years and across levels of expertise (e.g., Brown et al., 2010; Fischbein et al., 1979, Tsamir, 1999). This presentation examines the interrelated complexities of notions of objectivity, bias, and argumentation as manifested in …
Comparing Two Models Of Evidence, Tone Kvernbekk
Comparing Two Models Of Evidence, Tone Kvernbekk
OSSA Conference Archive
The context for this paper is evidence-based practice (EBP). EBP is about production of desirable change. The evidence should come from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To make sense of RCT evidence it must be placed in an argument structure. I compare two different models, Toulmin and Cartwright, and investigate whether the two models can be merged into one. I shall argue that such merging is not feasible.
Don’T Worry, Be Gappy! On The Unproblematic Gappiness Of Alleged Fallacies, Fabio Paglieri
Don’T Worry, Be Gappy! On The Unproblematic Gappiness Of Alleged Fallacies, Fabio Paglieri
OSSA Conference Archive
The history of fallacy theory is long, distinguished and, admittedly, checkered. I offer a bird eye view on it, with the aim of contrasting the standard conception of fallacies as attractive and universal errors that are hard to eradicate (section 1) with the contemporary preoccupation with “non-fallacious fallacies”, that is, arguments that fit the bill of one of the traditional fallacies but are actually respectable enough to be used in appropriate contexts (section 2). Godden and Zenker have recently argued that reinterpreting alleged fallacies as non-fallacious arguments requires supplementing the textual material with something else, e.g. probability distributions, pragmatic considerations, …