Argumentation Schemes in Technology-Mediated Open Innovation Product-Service Models: An Activity Systems Perspective

The paper uses activity theory for understanding and managing the complexity involved in the transition of a product-service organization from closed to the technology-mediated open mode of innovation. In particular, activity theory is used to facilitate the alignment of the open innovation model adopted with the organization’s dominant argumentation scheme by developing nested representations of the innovation process in the traditional closed mode, as well as in the user-led innovation and user co-creation modes, associated with product- and service-provision operations, respectively. For all cases, we concentrate on the argumentation-in-innovation activity and its context. We arrive at insights about the process of Activity Based Analysis (ABA) in this endeavor and the issues raised through action research in a product-service firm in the food and beverages sector, aiming at adopting an open innovation strategy implemented in the innovation community mode.

A Simple Theory of Argument Schemes

While there has been in depth discussion of many particular argumentation schemes, some lament that there is little to no theory underpinning the notion of an argumentation scheme. Here I shall argue against the utility of argument schemes, at least as a fundamental part of a complete theory of arguments. I shall also present and defend a minimalist theory of their nature—a scheme is just a set of proposition expressions and propositional functions. While simple, the theory contravenes several typical desiderata of argumentation schemes such as (i) aiding in the identification of enthymemes and (ii) keeping arguments constrained to a manageable taxonomy. So much the worse for the desiderata. Instead, I shall recommend focusing less on schemes and more on the component propositional functions.

Abduction and comparative weighing of explanatory hypotheses: an argumentative approach

This paper makes use of the concepts and theoretical framework developed within the field of Argumentation Theory to account for the structure and characteristics of abduction and of the comparative processes of weighing explanatory hypothesis. It elaborates an analysis of abduction based on its consideration as a meta-explanatory argumentation scheme while elucidating its relations with abductive reasoning and inference. The conceptualization of comparative processes of weighing explanatory hypothesis as complex and varied argumentative structures is presented as an alternative to the idea of providing a formally rigid and supposedly universal account of ‘inference to the best explanation’.

Abduction and comparative weighing of explanatory hypotheses: an argumentative approach

This paper makes use of the concepts and theoretical framework developed within the field of Argumentation Theory to account for the structure and characteristics of abduction and of the comparative processes of weighing explanatory hypothesis. It elaborates an analysis of abduction based on its consideration as a meta-explanatory argumentation scheme while elucidating its relations with abductive reasoning and inference. The conceptualization of comparative processes of weighing explanatory hypothesis as complex and varied argumentative structures is presented as an alternative to the idea of providing a formally rigid and supposedly universal account of ‘inference to the best explanation’.

Epistemic and deontic authority in the argumentum ad verecundiam

The aim of this paper is to elaborate tools that would allow us to analyse arguments from authority and guard against fallacious uses of them. To accomplish this aim, we extend the list of existing argumentation schemes representing arguments from authority. For this purpose, we formulate a new argumentation scheme for argument from deontic authority along with a matching set of critical questions used to evaluate it. We argue that clarifying the ambiguity between arguments from epistemic and deontic authority helps building a better explanation of the informal fallacy of appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).

Prospective mathematics teachers’ argumentation structure when constructing a mathematical proof: The importance of backing

[English]: This qualitative study with phenomenology design aims to investigate the use of backing and its relation to rebuttal and qualifier in prospective mathematics teachers’ (PMTs) argumentation when constructing a mathematical proof about algebraic function. The data were collected through subjects' works on the proof, recorded think-aloud data, and in-depth interviews. Data analysis was guided by Toulmin’s argumentation scheme. The results show that the PMTs used three types of backing, i.e., backing in the form of definitions or theorems (reference backing), examples of numbers (numerical backing) and graphs of functions (graphical backing). The PMTs utilized the backings to strengthen deductive and inductive warrant. A numerical backing is used when a warrant cannot justify the truth of a claim. Graphical backing is used to convince oneself about the truth of the data that has been made while the reference backing is only clarification when students have understood or have knowledge of the statement given. Numerical and graphical backing relate directly to rebuttal and provide counter-examples and qualifier of the claim. A numerical backing makes students more confident about claims that are generated compared to reference backing. Keywords: Argumentation, Mathematical proof, Backing [Bahasa]: Penelitian kualitatif dengan desain fenomenologi ini bertujuan untuk menyelidiki penggunaan backing dan hubungannya dengan rebuttal dan qualifier dalam membangun bukti matematika terkait fungsi aljabar oleh calon guru matematika. Data dikumpulkan melalui hasil kerja siswa, rekaman think aloud, dan wawancara mendalam. Analisis data merujuk pada skema argumentasi Toulmin. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa backing yang digunakan siswa tidak hanya berbentuk teorema atau definisis (reference backing) tetapi juga contoh-contoh bilangan (numerical backing) dan grafik fungsi (graphical backing). Ketiga jenis backing tersebut untuk memperkuat warrant induktif maupun deduktif. Numerical backing digunakan ketika warrant tidak dapat menjustifikasi kebenaran klaim. Graphical backing digunakan untuk meyakinkan diri sendiri tentang kebenaran klaim yang telah dibuat sedangkan reference backing hanya bersifat klarifikasi karena siswa telah memahami pernyataan yang diberikan. Numerical backing dan graphical backing berhubungan langsung dengan rebuttal untuk memberikan contoh penyangkal dan jaminan kebenaran (qualifier) klaim. Numerical backing membuat siswa lebih percaya diri tentang klaim yang dihasilkan dibandingkan dengan reference backing. Kata kunci: Argumentasi, Bukti matematis, Backing

An argumentative approach on abduction and on the weighing of explanatory hypotheses

This paper makes use of the concepts and theoretical framework developed within the field of Argumentation Theory to account for the structure and characteristics of abduction and of the comparative processes of weighing explanatory hypothesis. It elaborates an analysis of abduction based on its consideration as a meta-explanatory argumentation scheme while elucidating its relations with abductive reasoning and inference. The conceptualization of comparative processes of weighing explanatory hypothesis as complex and varied argumentative structures is presented as an alternative to the idea of “inference to the best explanation”.

From text to scheme

We show how to solve common problems in identifying arguments from expert opinion, illustrated by five examples selected from The Economist. Our method started by intuitively identifying many appeals to alleged experts in The Economist and comparing them to the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion. This approach led us to (i) extending the existing list of possible faults committed when arguments from expert opinion are performed and (ii) proposing the extension of the list of linguistic cues that would allow analysts to identify arguments from expert opinion. Our ultimate aim is to help argument identification by argument mining connect better with techniques of argument analysis and evaluation.

Argumentationsindikatoren in deutschen, polnischen und englischen Interviews. Versuch einer vergleichenden Analyse nach der pragma-dialektischen Typologie der Argumentationsschemata

Um Textpassagen in Bezug auf ihre argumentative Funktion zu untersuchen, braucht man geeignete Werkzeuge, die als argumentative Indikatoren verstanden werden können. Ihre Rolle als wirksames Mittel der Argumentationsanalyse wurde in einigen Beiträgen beschrieben. Allerdings ist die Frage, ob sie in verschiedenen Sprachen anwendbar sind, noch nicht beantwortet. Nach der Pragma-Dialektik kann jede Argumentation auf ein bestimmtes Argumentationsschema zurückgeführt werden. Darum kann die Argumentation auf einer Analogie, einem Kausalverhältnis und einem symptomatischen Verhältnis beruhen. Darüber hinaus gibt es typische Argumentationsschemata, die angewendet werden können, um festzustellen, welche Art von Argument verwendet wird. Im Mittelpunkt dieser Arbeit steht die Zusammenstellung von Indikatoren für drei Argumentationsschemata. So wird versucht, auf der Grundlage der Analyse von Interviews zu bestimmen, welche Wörter und Phrasen für die Identifizierung der Art der Argumentation nützlich sein können.Argumentative indicators in German, Polish and English interviews. Attempt of a comparative analysis according to the pragma-dialectical typology of the argumentation schemesTo examine passages of text in terms of its argumentative function one needs appropriate tools understood as argumentative indicators. Their role as an effective means of the argumentation analysis has been described in some contributions. However, the question if they are applicable in different languages, has not been answered yet. According to the pragma-dialectics every argumentation can be attributed to a specific argumentation scheme. Therefore, argumentation can be based on: a relation of analogy, a causal relation and a symptomatic relation. Furthermore, there are typical argumentative models that can be applied in order to determine what type of argument is used. The focus of this paper is to compile indicators of three argumentation schemes. Thus, it is attempted to determine on the basis of the analysis of interviews, which words and phrases can be useful for identifying the type of argumentation.