Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Reinstatement is a principle of argumentation systems that enables the justification of a defeated argument when all its defeaters are in turn ultimately defeated. Some counterexamples to reinstatement have been offered in the literature. Specifically, counterexamples suggest that reinstatement cannot be taken as a general principle of defeasible argumentation because the reinstated arguments may support incorrect conclusions. Some authors argued that the problems are not due to reinstatement but to the formalization of those examples. Then, the solution is to make the language expressive enough to obtain the correct results. They also warn that one should avoid tinkering with the formalization in concrete examples just to get a desired outcome. Therefore, this approach should be combined with the search of general principles for choosing the proper formalization. Taking into account that finding general principles of representation could be a hard enterprise, the goal of this thesis is to identify some criterion that allows i. neutralize the counterexamples, ii. preserve the original formal language as much as possible, and iii. maintain reinstatement as a general principle. To identify that criterion, counterexamples are analyzed and possible causes of the problem are detected. As a result it is found that the preference by specificity among arguments can be used to obtain that criterion. Three approaches based on specificity are proposed and evaluated. Two of them introduce alternative defeat relations among arguments. The third one is based on filtering the non maximally specific arguments.
Reinstatement is a principle of argumentation systems that enables the justification of a defeated argument when all its defeaters are in turn ultimately defeated. Some counterexamples to reinstatement have been offered in the literature. Specifically, counterexamples suggest that reinstatement cannot be taken as a general principle of defeasible argumentation because the reinstated arguments may support incorrect conclusions. Some authors argued that the problems are not due to reinstatement but to the formalization of those examples. Then, the solution is to make the language expressive enough to obtain the correct results. They also warn that one should avoid tinkering with the formalization in concrete examples just to get a desired outcome. Therefore, this approach should be combined with the search of general principles for choosing the proper formalization. Taking into account that finding general principles of representation could be a hard enterprise, the goal of this thesis is to identify some criterion that allows i. neutralize the counterexamples, ii. preserve the original formal language as much as possible, and iii. maintain reinstatement as a general principle. To identify that criterion, counterexamples are analyzed and possible causes of the problem are detected. As a result it is found that the preference by specificity among arguments can be used to obtain that criterion. Three approaches based on specificity are proposed and evaluated. Two of them introduce alternative defeat relations among arguments. The third one is based on filtering the non maximally specific arguments.
El objetivo de este artículo es analizar el estatus de la investigación sobre la competencia argumentativa dentro del ámbito educativo. Para ello se consideran diferentes propuestas para su desarrollo, ya sea en forma oral o escrita, tanto en escenarios virtuales como mixtos o presenciales en diferentes áreas del conocimiento. El análisis se centra en setenta y tres investigaciones ubicadas en seis bases de datos donde se tomó en cuenta el año en que se realizó la investigación, el tipo de publicación, el nivel educativo en el que se llevó a cabo, la actividad o la situación educativa, el tipo de análisis reportado y el área de conocimiento. El período en que las investigaciones fueron realizadas abarca los años 2000 y 2016, y la mayor parte de textos tratados son artículos científicos (un 88%) que se concentran en la argumentación escrita (un 43%), utilizando el análisis cualitativo para evaluar los argumentos (un 41%), en escenarios presenciales (un 45%) de educación superior (un 50%), en su mayor parte en el área de humanidades y ciencias de la conducta (un 24%), con una presencia mínima en las áreas de ingenierías, medicina y fisicomatemáticas. A partir de esta revisión se reflexiona sobre la necesidad de implementar los hallazgos reportados en diferentes áreas de formación profesional, las posibilidades de desarrollar esta competencia en niveles educativos más tempranos y la instrumentación de la evaluación formativa, además del aprovechamiento de la potencialidad de las TIC.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.