An argumentative reconstruction of the computer metaphor of the brain

The computer metaphor of the brain is frequently criticized by scientists and philosophers outside the computational paradigm. Proponents of the metaphor may then seek to defend its explanatory merits, in which case the metaphor functions as a standpoint. Insofar as previous research in argumentation theory has treated metaphors either as presentational devices or arguments by analogy, this points to hitherto unexplored aspects of how metaphors may function in argumentative discourse. We start from the assumption that the computer metaphor of the brain constitutes an explanatory hypothesis and set out to reconstruct it as a standpoint defended by a complex argumentation structure: abduction supported by analogy. We then provide three examples of real arguments conforming to our theoretically motivated construction. We conclude that our study obtains proof-of-concept but that more research is needed in order to further clarify the relationship between our theoretical construct and the complexities of empirical reality.

Scientific Argumentation Practice and Verbal Interaction in Chemistry Classroom Among 10th Grade Students

Practicing scientific argumentation is believed capable of nurturing higher order thinking and scientific literacy among students. Yet, it has not been well practiced as evidenced by typical classroom teaching activity. The purpose of this research is, to study the practice of scientific argumentation among chemistry teachers through the argument level and classroom verbal interaction pattern. Four chemistry teachers and their students from Johor Bahru, a district of Johor was selected as the participants of this qualitative research. Five observations for each teacher had been conducted and observation become the principal method of data collection. Findings shows that the scientific argumentation being constructed in class was only at Level 1 (7%), Level 2 (54%) and Level 3 (39%). No higher and complex argumentations were found. Two interaction patterns, Initiation-Response-Evaluation/Feedback (IRE/IRF) (18%) and Initiation-Response-Feedback-Response-Feedback (IRFRF) (82%) were detected when teacher were practicing scientific argumentation. The interaction pattern practices, IRFRF is good, yet the argumentation being constructed is still at low level as higher argumentation seems to be beyond the samples’ ability. A further research probing into how IRFRF interaction pattern can be further enhanced to nurture complex argumentation is needed.

Argument complexity: Teaching undergrads to make better arguments

The task of turning undergrads into academics requires teaching them to reason about the world in a more complex way. We present the Argument Complexity Scale, a tool for analyzing the complexity of argu-mentation, based on the Integrative Complexity and Conceptual Complexity Scales from, respectively, political psychology and personality theory. Argument Complexity classifies arguments based on acknowl-edgement and consideration of conflicting evidence or conflicting frameworks for judging the issue, use of frameworks for evaluating evidence, and use of meta-frameworks for evaluating frameworks. We discuss how the Argument Complexity Scale can be used to teach undergraduate students to reason and write like academics by providing the scaffolding for forming complex argumentation.

Complex Argumentation in Elementary School

This paper describes a study of mathematical argumentation in primary school. The principal aim is to explore the nature of complex argumentation at a structural level. The context of the study was a teaching experiment involving nine tasks that promoted argumentation among fifth graders. We use the framework and method of reconstructing complex argumentation in the classroom proposed by Knipping (2008). The findings show that complex argumentation at a structural level in the context of refuting conclusions is characterized by a source-like structure with the addition of a new refutation argument element.Handle: http://hdl.handle.net/10481/57623Scopus record and citations

The Economic Theory of the Scholastics as a Contractual Analysis

The doctrine of the “just price” is more than often described as the core of the “economic” thinking of the Scholastics (de Roover 1958; Baldwin 1959; Wilson 1975; Worland 1977). In fact, one could hardly contest that the notion occupies a place of high importance in the economic reflections of the Medieval Doctors. It is of no doubt that their study of economic reality led them to call up very frequently the said notion of “just price”. Yet the insistence with which modern historiography has itself treated this – central but particular – element of the Scholastic economic thinking conceals, to our opinion, some of its important sights and interests. An “objective” approach of the scholastic theory seems to command such an interpretation. But why is the phrase “just price” so often used and developed by the Doctors? Such a simple question cannot be answered simply by focusing on the notion. From a more “methodological” point of view, just price appears only like the final result of a complex argumentation. Little attention has been given to the fact that (1) the issue at stake is less a problem of correctness in limited bargaining than a general question of social justice; (2) the method used to deal with this vast subject in the field of economic relations is a systematic “contractual” analysis. The second point forms the main theme of this paper.

Incorporating Sustainability into Engineering Education Using e-Learning

The purpose of this study was to develop e-learning activities that integrated sustainability concepts and practices in process engineering education. Two blended courses were developed with two activities evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively to measure student engagement, quality of responses, and incorporation of sustainability in their arguments. Social network analysis and lexical analysis were used to assess students’ participation in discussions and peer reviews. In the online discussion, 97 comments were made averaging 120 words per comment. The participants averaged 3.88 comments, with the majority of comments exhibiting simple and complex argumentation, a deep reflection, and widespread use of terms associated with sustainability such as recycling, pollution, waste, and environment. Furthermore, evaluation of peer reviews revealed that the participants demonstrated they could identify errors and positives in an argument. Therefore, this study demonstrated that e-learning, particularly peer review and online discussion could help chemistry and engineering students understand sustainability.

The collaborative dimensions of argument maps: A socio-visual approach

This paper examines the collaborative use of visual argument maps in the context of argument production in organizations. Argument maps are highly multimodal, as their use involves the combination of diagrams, text elements, as well as spoken statements. In this theoretical piece, we apply a Collaborative Dimensions framework to argument maps that can be used to better design, understand, evaluate, and use argument maps in collaborative settings for decision making purposes. Specifically, our conceptual framework – derived from interdisciplinary perspectives – takes into consideration how the visual dimensions of argument maps have a bearing on the social interactions of people involved in a complex argumentation process. We posit that cognitive dimensions of argument maps need to be enriched with additional communicative and collaborative dimensions in order to foster a more widespread adoption of argument mapping in organizational decision making. In our socio-visual approach to argument mapping, we thus distinguish the following seven dimensions: Visual Insight, Outcome Clarity, Directed Focus, Perceived Finishedness, Visual Appeal, Content Modifiability, and Collaboration Support. We illustrate the use of the framework as an evaluation tool and analyze three different approaches to argument mapping with the help of the seven dimensions. In this way, the framework can be used to improve collaborative argument mapping. Our contribution thus lies in proposing an interdisciplinary and theoretically grounded set of factors to augment the quality of argument maps, both from a process and a results perspective. In this manner we hope to contribute to the theory of argumentation through the rich notion of “collaborative dimensions,” as well as further the practice of collaborative argument production through a more reflective and systematic use of interactive argument visualization.

Analogical Argument Schemes and Complex Argument Structure

This paper addresses several issues in argumentation theory. The over-arching goal is to discuss how a theory of analogical argument schemes fits the pragma-dialectical theory of argument schemes and argument structures, and how one should properly reconstruct both single and complex argumentation by analogy. I also propose a unified model that explains how formal valid deductive argumentation relates to argument schemes in general and to analogical argument schemes in particular. The model suggests “scheme-specific-validity” i.e. that there are contrasting species of validity for each type of argument scheme that derive from one generic conception of validity.

The Rhetoric of Multi-Display Learning Spaces: exploratory experiences in visual art disciplines

Multi-Display Learning Spaces (MD-LS) comprise technologies to allow the viewing of multiple simultaneous visual materials, modes of learning which encourage critical reflection upon these materials, and spatial configurations which afford interaction between learners and the materials in orchestrated ways. In this paper we provide an argument for the benefits of Multi-Display Learning Spaces in supporting complex, disciplinary reasoning within learning, focussing upon our experiences within postgraduate visual arts education. The importance of considering the affordances of the physical environment within education has been acknowledged by the recent attention given to Learning Spaces, yet within visual art disciplines the perception of visual material within a given space has long been seen as a key methodological consideration with implications for the identity of the discipline itself. We analyse the methodological, technological and spatial affordances of MD-LS to support learning, and discuss comparative viewing as a disciplinary method to structure visual analysis within the space which benefits from the simultaneous display of multiple partitions of visual evidence. We offer an analysis of the role of the teacher in authoring and orchestration and conclude by proposing a more general structure for what we term ‘multiple perspective learning’, in which the presentation of multiple pieces of visual evidence creates the conditions for complex argumentation within Higher Education.