Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation

Hornikx, J.M.A.; Hahn, Ulrike

doi:10.1080/13546783.2012.674715

Cited by 35 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Including explicit refutations in science text seems to be a promising approach to change inaccurate prior misconceptions in university students (Braasch, Goldman, & Wiley, 2013). From an integrated perspective on reasoning and argumentation (Hornikx & Hahn, 2012), the ability to generate argument-based evaluations might depend partly on the ability to generate (counter-)arguments and that both might be instances of a broader ability of argumentative or rational thinking (e.g., Stanovich, 2012). Based on this perspective, fostering argumentation skills could also be a means to (indirectly) improve argument evaluation skills.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judging the plausibility of arguments in scientific texts: a student–scientist comparison

Mühlen

Richter

Schmid

et al. 2015

Thinking & Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to evaluate scientific claims and evidence is an important aspect of scientific literacy and requires various epistemic competences. Readers spontaneously validate presented information against their knowledge and beliefs but differ in their ability to strategically evaluate the soundness of informal arguments. The present research investigated how students of psychology, compared to scientists working in psychology, evaluate informal arguments. Using a think-aloud procedure, we identified the specific strategies students and scientists apply when judging the plausibility of arguments and classifying common argumentation fallacies. Results indicate that students, compared to scientists, have difficulties forming these judgements and base them on intuition and opinion rather than the internal consistency of arguments. Our findings are discussed using the mental model theory framework. Although introductory students validate scientific information against their knowledge and beliefs, their judgements are often erroneous, in part because their use of strategy is immature. Implications for systematic trainings of epistemic competences are discussed. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 14 April 2015; Accepted 27 November 2015KEYWORDS Informal argument evaluation; epistemic competences; mental model theory; think-aloud procedure; competences in higher education Arguments can affect our daily lives in many ways, whether we think of politicians trying to persuade us to vote for a particular party, a newspaper article providing a certain perspective on a societal issue, or taking decisions about which kind of career we would like to pursue. In scientific discourse, arguments also play a central role, because they link theoretical claims to supporting empirical evidence. Students entering university are confronted with scientific literature that presents different and at times conflicting theories backed up by more or less compelling evidence. The ability to evaluate This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. THINKING & REASONING, 2016 VOL. 22, NO. 2, 221À249 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2015 scientific claims and evidence is an important aspect of scientific literacy and requires various epistemic competences (Britt, Richter, & Rouet, 2014). The present research investigated how students of psychology, compared to scientists working in psychology, evaluate arguments and which strategies they use to judge their plausibility. Successful readers possess a broad number of general processing strategies that they use in a flexible way, depending on the processing goal (Wyatt et al., 1993). Although argumentation skills are generally not formally taught in higher education, we expect scie...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judging the plausibility of arguments in scientific texts: a student–scientist comparison

Mühlen

Richter

Schmid

et al. 2015

Thinking & Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bij de argumentatietheorie gaat de aandacht hier alleen uit naar de argumentatieschema's, die zich richten op de manier waarop premissen een conclusie ondersteunen (voor het verschil tussen schema's en andere perspectieven in de argumentatietheorie, zie Blair, 2009). In dit artikel wordt betoogd dat een combinatie van perspectieven (zie ook O' Keefe, 1995;Hornikx & Hahn, 2012;Nussbaum, 2011) de meeste potentie heeft om een beter inzicht te krijgen in hetgeen argumenten al dan niet overtuigend maakt. Het uiteindelijke doel op langere termijn is een theorie over argumentkwaliteit die voor verschillende argumenten kenmerken formuleert die de kwaliteit bepalen.…”

Section: Inleidingunclassified

“…In plaats van uitspraken dat 'de koersen volgende week toenemen', 'het morgen regent' en 'alcohol tot concentratieproblemen leidt' is onze kennis veel meer van het soort 'de koersen nemen naar alle waarschijnlijkheid toe volgende week', 'de kans is groot dat het morgen regent' en 'er is een groot risico van concentratieproblemen bij inname van alcohol'. Als laatste reden doen de soorten argumenten die de formele logica onderscheidt, hoewel onbeperkt wat het aantal betreft, geen recht aan de complexe vormen van argumentatie die mensen gebruiken (Hornikx & Hahn, 2012). De studie naar het menselijk redeneren heeft de laatste jaren juist op het punt van de binaire benadering een grote ommezwaai gemaakt.…”

Section: Normen Voor Argumentkwaliteit In Cognitieve Psychologieunclassified

“…Deze theorie komt niet via Bayes naar voren, maar kan wel in de stelling worden verwerkt. Inzichten uit de sociale en cognitieve psychologie, de communicatiewetenschap en de argumentatietheorie zijn nodig om, samen met het Bayesiaanse vertrekpunt, argumentatieschema's te bouwen, te classificeren en van normatieve kritische vragen te voorzien (vergelijk O'Keefe, 1995;Hornikx & Hahn, 2012;Nussbaum, 2011). Op die manier ontstaat er een theorie over welke kenmerken de kwaliteit van een argument bepalen -en kunnen we ook beter het argument van de Spaanse buurman beoordelen.…”

Section: Beperkingenunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Een Bayesiaans perspectief op argumentkwaliteit - Het ad populum-argument onder de loep

Hornikx¹

2013

Tijdschrift Voor Taalbeheersing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to convince people of a claim persuasive arguments are important. Social psychological studies have shown that some arguments are more persuasive than others, but it is not clear what argument characteristics account for this difference. In search of a theory of argument quality this paper reviews different perspectives on argument quality. Cognitive psychological studies have uncovered such argument characteristics, but this perspective has important drawbacks. The most fruitful account is argument theory with its argumentation schemes and critical questions. This account, too, has shortcomings. This paper argues that a Bayesian perspective is a useful starting point to develop a theory of argument quality. A Bayesian analysis of the ad populum argument shows the potential of this account. An interdisciplinary approach with insights from psychology, the argumentation schemes, and Bayes is potentially fruitful to build a theory of argument quality.

show abstract

“…To bridge the different communities working on argumentation, in [10] the authors distinguish between the 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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four Ways to Evaluate Arguments According to Agent Engagement

Bisquert

Croitoru

Saint-Cyr

2015

Brain Informatics and Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we are interested in the computational and formal analysis of the persuasive impact that an argument can have on a human. We present a preliminary account of the listener mental process (representation and reasoning mechanisms of the dual process cognitive model) as well as her engagement based on the ELM model. This engagement determines the reasoning process that the agent will adopt in order to evaluate and incorporate the uttered argument.

show abstract

Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation

Cited by 35 publications

References 86 publications

Judging the plausibility of arguments in scientific texts: a student–scientist comparison

Judging the plausibility of arguments in scientific texts: a student–scientist comparison

Een Bayesiaans perspectief op argumentkwaliteit - Het ad populum-argument onder de loep

Four Ways to Evaluate Arguments According to Agent Engagement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About