Psychological Research and the Epistemological Approach to Argumentation (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Epistemological Theory of Argument-How and Why?
INFORMAL LOGIC-WINDSOR ONTARIO-, 2005
The article outlines a general epistemological theory of argument, i.e. a theory that regards providing justified belief as the principal aim of argumentation, and defends it instrumentalistically. After introducing some central terms of such a theory (2), answers to its central questions are proposed: the primary object and structure of the theory (3), the function of arguments, which is to lead to justified belief (4), the way such arguments function, which is to guide the addressee's cognizing (5), objective versus subjective aspects of argumentation (6), designing different types of argument (7). Then the notion of '(argumentatively) valid argument' is defined and criteria for the adequate use of such arguments are introduced (8). Finally, this conception is justified as, among others, leading to more true beliefs than competing conceptions (9).
Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation
Thinking & Reasoning, 2012
Although argumentation plays an essential role in our lives, there is no integrated area of research on the psychology of argumentation. Instead research on argumentation is conducted in a number of separate research communities that are spread across disciplines and have only limited interaction. With a view to bridging these different strands, we first distinguish between three meanings of the word ''argument'': argument as a reason, argument as a structured sequence of reasons and claims, and argument as a social exchange. All three meanings are integral to a complete understanding of human reasoning and cognition. Cognitive psychological research on argumentation has focused mostly on the first and second of these meanings, so we present perspectives on argumentation from outside of cognitive psychology, which focus on the second and third. Specifically, we give an overview of the methods, goals, and disciplinary backgrounds of research on the production, the analysis, and the evaluation of arguments. Finally, in introducing the experimental studies included in this special issue, which were conducted by researchers from a range of theoretical backgrounds, we underline the breadth of argumentation research as well as stress opportunities for mutual awareness and integration.
Developing Epistemological Understanding in Scientific and Social Domains through Argumentation
Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 2016
Wie das Argumentieren die Entwicklung eines epistemologischen Verständnisses in wissenschaftlichen und sozialen Bereichen fördern kann Zusammenfassung. Diese Arbeit untersucht, ob eine Intervention zur Veränderung des Argumentationsverhaltens die Entwicklung eines evaluativen epistemologischen Verständnisses fördern kann. Studierende wurden randomisiert einer von zwei Interventionsbedingungen zugewiesen, die sich entweder mit einem sozialen oder ein wissenschaftlichen Thema beschäftigten. Die epistemologischen Überzeugungen wurden vor und nach der Intervention anhand eines sozialen und eines wissenschaftlichen Themas ermittelt. Zusätzlich wurden die Ansichten der Studierenden über ihre eigenen Wissensprozesse sowie über die von Wissenschaftlern erhoben. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass dialogische Argumentationsaktivitäten die Entwicklung eines evaluativen domänenspezifischen epistemologischen Verständnisses unterstützte. Weitere qualitative Analysen zeigten, dass die Teilnehmer je nach ...
Explanation and Evidence in Informal Argument
Cognitive Science, 2000
A substantial body of evidence shows that people tend to rely too heavily on explanations when trying to justify an opinion. Some research suggests these errors may arise from an inability to distinguish between explanations and the evidence that bears upon them. We examine an alternative account, that many people do distinguish between explanations and evidence, but rely more heavily on unsubstantiated explanations when evidence is scarce or absent. We examine the philosophical and psychological distinctions between explanation and evidence, and show that participants use explanations as a substitute for missing evidence. Experiment 1 replicates the results of other researchers, but further shows that participants generate more evidence when they are not constrained by their lack of data. Merely mentioning a source of data can alter both their evaluation (Experiment 2) and their production (Experiment 3) of explanations and evidence. In Experiment 4, we show that participants can explicitly consider the availability of evidence and other pragmatic factors when evaluating arguments. Finally, we consider the implications of using explanations to replace missing evidence as a strategy in argument.
In Defense of the Objective Epistemic Approach to Argumentation
Informal Logic
In this paper we defend a particular version of the epistemic approach to argumentation. We advance some general considerations in favor of the approach and then examine the ways in which different versions of it play out with respect to the theory of fallacies, which we see as central to an understanding of argumentation. Epistemic theories divide into objective and subjective versions. We argue in favor of the objective version, showing that it provides a better account than its subjectivist rival of the central fallacy of begging the question. We suggest that the strengths of the objective epistemic theory of fallacies provide support for the epistemic approach to argumentation more generally.
Epistemic normativity, argumentation, and fallacies
Argumentation
ABSTRACT: In Biro and Siegel (1992) we argued that a theory of argumentation must fully engage the normativity of judgments about arguments, and we developed such a theory. In this paper we further develop and defend our theory. ... KEY WORDS: Argumentation, ...
The role of students’ epistemic beliefs for their argumentation performance in higher education
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 2022
Students’ argumentation performance can be influenced by their epistemic beliefs, however, in the context of argumentative essay writing and argumentative peer feedback in online setting this has not been clearly investigated. This study explores relationship between students’ epistemic beliefs and argumentation performance regarding essay writing and peer feedback. In total, 101 undergraduate students filled out the epistemic beliefs survey and wrote an argumentative essay. Then, they provided two sets of feedback on the essays of their peers and finally submitted their revised essays. Students’ beliefs about the Internet-specific justification of knowledge did not play a significant role in their argumentation performance in essay writing, while it was related to their constructive peer feedback performance. Students’ beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge were significantly related to their argumentative essay writing and peer feedback performance. In terms of uptake of peer feedback, no significant role was found for epistemic beliefs.
Justifying the Epistemological Theory of Argumentation
Informal Logic, 2024
This article discusses Harvey Siegel's general justification of the epistemological theory of argumentation in his seminal essay "Arguing with Arguments." On the one hand, the achievements of this essay are honoured-in particular, a thorough differentiation of the different meanings of 'argument' and 'argumentation,' the semantic justification of the fundamentality of arguments as sequences of propositions, and the detailed critiques of alternative theories of argumentation. On the other hand, suggestions for strengthening the theory are added to Siegel's expositions, which make different perspectives within the epistemological theory of argumentation recognisable. Résumé: On discute de la justification générale par Harvey Siegel de la théorie épistémologique de l'argumentation dans son essai fondateur « Arguing with Arguments ». D'une part, les réalisations de cet essai sont honorées, en particulier une différenciation approfondie des différentes significations de « argument » et « argumentation », la justification sémantique de la fondamentalité des arguments en tant que séquences de propositions, et les critiques détaillées des solutions alternatives. D'autre part, des suggestions visant à renforcer la théorie sont ajoutées aux exposés de Siegel, qui en même temps font reconnaître différentes perspectives au sein de la théorie épistémologique de l'argumentation.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2014
Personal epistemology describes an individual's beliefs about the structure, stability and sources of knowledge and knowing. These beliefs contribute to how we interpret information, weigh evidence and justify an argument. In this study, we examined whether exposure to information from an authoritative source affects Chinese students' performance in a subsequent argumentation task that required integrating conflicting views. Furthermore, we examined how epistemological beliefs interact with the effect of authoritative information on argumentation performance. 204 undergraduates participated. The results suggested that the participants who were experimentally exposed to authoritative information generated fewer counter reasons and produced arguments that were less elaborated and weaker in strength than those produced by participants who were not exposed to authoritative information. Specifically, the experimental manipulation had a more significant effect on those who held a belief that knowledge is drawn from authority than on those who perceived knowledge as constructed. In addition, the performance of those who believed knowledge is complicated and ever-changing was hampered under the experimental condition. Theoretical and practicebased implications are discussed.