Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Teaching a Process Model of Legal Argument with Hypotheticals.Kevin D. Ashley - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (4):321-370.
    The research described here explores the idea of using Supreme Court oral arguments as pedagogical examples in first year classes to help students learn the role of hypothetical reasoning in law. The article presents examples of patterns of reasoning with hypotheticals in appellate legal argument and in the legal classroom and a process model of hypothetical reasoning that relates them to work in cognitive science and Artificial Intelligence. The process model describes the relationships between an advocate’s proposed test for deciding (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Reasons: A Digital Argument Mapping Library for Modern Browsers.Dave Kinkead, Deborah Brown, Peter Ellerton & Claudio Mazzola - 2019 - Journal of Open Source Software 4 (37):1044.
    Reasons.js is an open-source, loosely-coupled, web-based argument mapping library that can be integrated into a range of online coursewares and websites. The javascript library can be embedded into any HTML page and allows users to create, edit, share, and export argument maps . The API is designed to permit the integration of the three stages of informal logical analysis — identification of truth claims within arguments, the analysis of logical structure, and synthesis of logical structure into written form.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Computer-Assisted Argument Mapping: A Rationale Approach.Martin Davies - 2009 - Higher Education 58:799-820.
    Computer-Assisted Argument Mapping (CAAM) is a new way of understanding arguments. While still embryonic in its development and application, CAAM is being used increasingly as a training and development tool in the professions and government. Inroads are also being made in its application within education. CAAM claims to be helpful in an educational context, as a tool for students in responding to assessment tasks. However, to date there is little evidence from students that this is the case. This paper outlines (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Introduction to the Special Issue on Critical Thinking in Higher Education.W. Martin Davies - 2011 - Higher Education Research and Development 30 (3):255-260.
    The articles included in this issue represent some of the most recent thinking in the area of critical thinking in higher education. While the emphasis is on work being done in the Australasian region, there are also papers from the USA and UK that demonstrate the international interest in advancing research in the area. -/- ‘Critical thinking’ in the guise of the study of logic and rhetoric has, of course, been around since the days of the ancient Greeks and the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Are We Asking the Right Questions About Critical Thinking Assessment?David Wright - 2015 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 30 (3):20-31.
    This is a response essay to Donald Hatcher’s, “Critical Thinking Instruction: A Realistic Evaluation: The Dream vs. Reality.” Hatcher argues that critical thinking instruction seriously falls short of the ideal of honestly evaluating alternative evidence and arguments. This failure is apparent, he argues, when one surveys student performance on a variety of CT assessment tests. Hatcher reviews the current CT assessment data, which includes an extensive pool of results collected from Baker University where Hatcher oversaw a sophisticated and well-funded CT (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Cognitive Effects of Argument Visualization Tools.Michael Hoffmann - 2011 - Argumentation: Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18-21, 2011.
    External representations play a crucial role in learning. At the same time, cognitive load theory suggests that the possibility of learning depends on limited resources of the working memory and on cognitive load imposed by instructional design and representation tools. Both these observations motivate a critical look at Computer-Supported Argument Visualization tools that are supposed to facilitate learning. This paper uses cognitive load theory to compare the cognitive efficacy of RationaleTM 2 and AGORA.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Araucaria as a Tool for Diagramming Arguments in Teaching and Studying Philosophy .F. Macagno, D. Walton, G. Rowe & C. Reed - 2006 - Teaching Philosophy 29 (2):111-124,.
    This paper explains how to use a new software tool for argument diagramming available free on the Internet, showing especially how it can be used in the classroom to enhance critical thinking in philosophy. The user loads a text file containing an argument into a box on the computer interface, and then creates an argument diagram by dragging lines from one node to another. A key feature is the support for argumentation schemes, common patterns of defeasible reasoning historically know as (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Using Argument Diagramming Software in the Classroom.Maralee Harrell - 2005 - Teaching Philosophy 28 (2):163-177.
    Many undergraduates, philosophy majors included, read philosophical texts similar to the way they read stories. One method for teaching students how to discern the argumentative structure of a philosophy text is through argument diagrams . This paper provides criteria for an ideal argument diagramming software and then reviews the strengths and weaknesses of such software currently available, e.g. Araucaria, Argutect, Athena Standard, Inspiration, and Reason!Able.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.Dan Sperber - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):57.
    Short abstract (98 words). Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given humans’ exceptional dependence on communication and vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   208 citations  
  • Conceptualizing and Supporting Awareness of Collaborative Argumentation.Maria Fysaraki - 2018 - Dissertation, LMU München
    In this thesis, we introduce “Argueware”. This is a concept for an instructional group awareness tool which aims at supporting social interactions in co-located computer-supported collaborative argumentation settings. Argueware is designed to support the social interactions in the content and in the relational space of co-located collaborative argumentation. The support for social interactions in the content space of collaboration is facilitated with the use of collaborative scripts for argumentation as well with the use of an argument mapping tool. The support (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Scaffolding Computer-Mediated Discussion to Enhance Moral Reasoning and Argumentation Quality in Pre-Service Teachers.Hüseyin Özçinar - 2015 - Journal of Moral Education 44 (2):232-251.
    This study investigated the effect of scaffolding computer-mediated discussions to improve moral reasoning and argumentation quality in pre-service teachers. Participants of this study were 76 teaching education students at a Turkish university. They were divided into three groups: a computer-supported argumentation group; a computer-mediated discussion group; and a control group. Participants in the computer-supported argumentation group were instructed in argumentation, and were provided with note starters and graphical argumentation tools. The computer-mediated discussion group, however, was engaged in unstructured interaction on (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Understanding, Evaluating, and Producing Arguments: Training is Necessary for Reasoning Skills.Maralee Harrell - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):80-81.
    This commentary suggests that the general population has much less reasoning skill than is claimed by Mercier & Sperber (M&S). In particular, many studies suggest that the skills of understanding, evaluating, and producing arguments are generally poor in the population of people who have not had specific training.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Reasoning, Robots, and Navigation: Dual Roles for Deductive and Abductive Reasoning.Janet Wiles - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):92-92.
    Mercier & Sperber (M&S) argue for their argumentative theory in terms of communicative abilities. Insights can be gained by extending the discussion beyond human reasoning to rodent and robot navigation. The selection of arguments and conclusions that are mutually reinforcing can be cast as a form of abductive reasoning that I argue underlies the construction of cognitive maps in navigation tasks.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Use of Data Mining by Private Health Insurance Companies and Customers’ Privacy.Yeslam Al-Saggaf - 2015 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24 (3):281-292.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Language and Diagramming of Rejection and Objection.Cathal Woods - unknown
    Understanding the language of rejections and objections is an important part of the analysis and practice of argument. In order to strengthen this understanding, we might turn to diagramming, as it has been shown to have the virtue of improving critical thinking skills. This paper discusses what reliable meaning can be taken from words and phrases related to rejections and objections, and then how to diagram them.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Metaphilosophical Criteria for Worldview Comparison.Clément Vidal - 2012 - Metaphilosophy 43 (3):306-347.
    Philosophy lacks criteria to evaluate its philosophical theories. To fill this gap, this essay introduces nine criteria to compare worldviews, classified in three broad categories: objective criteria (objective consistency, scientificity, scope), subjective criteria (subjective consistency, personal utility, emotionality), and intersubjective criteria (intersubjective consistency, collective utility, narrativity). The essay first defines what a worldview is and exposes the heuristic used in the quest for criteria. After describing each criterion individually, it shows what happens when each of them is violated. From the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations