Community of inquiry is most often seen as a dialogical procedure for the cooperative development of reasonable approaches to knowledge and meaning. This reflects a deep commitment to normatively based reasoning that is pervasive in a wide range of approaches to critical thinking and argument, where the underlying theory of reasoning is logic driven, whether formal or informal. The commitment to normative reasoning is deeply historical reflecting the fundamental distinction between reason and emotion. Despite the deep roots of the distinction (...) and its canonization in current educational thought, contemporary cognitive neuroscience presents a fundamental challenge to the viability of the distinction and thus to any effort that sees education for reasonable judgment to be based on the remediation of cognition in isolation from its roots in the emotions. Cognitive neuroscience looks at the deep connections between emotion and memory, information retrieval, and resistance to refutation. This conforms with earlier studies in experimental psychology, which showed resistance to changing beliefs in the face of evidence, including evidence based on personal experience. This paper will look at the recent research including speculations from neurological modeling that shows the depth of connection between, emotions, memory and reasoning. It will draw implications for dialogic thinking within a community of inquiry including systematic self-reflection as an essential aspect of critical thinking. (shrink)

This commentary discusses a strategy by which investigators can examine whether observers perceive properties of the global array independently of properties in individual sensory arrays. Research showing that perception of complex relationships appears to be independent of the perception of individual components is considered. Ashby and Townsend's (1986) methods for identifying perceptual independence are important tools for studying the global array.

Mark Weinstein; Creativity and Discovery, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 27, Issue 2, 30 May 2006, Pages 275–280, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-975.

Mark Weinstein; Creativity and Discovery, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 27, Issue 2, 30 May 2006, Pages 275–280, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-975.

In this article it is argued that a complex model that includes Toulmin's functional account of argument, the pragma-dialectical stage analysis of argumentation offered by the Amsterdam School, and criteria developed in critical thinking theory, can be used to account for the normativity and field-dependence of argumentation in science. A pragma-dialectical interpretation of the four main elements of Toulmin's model, and a revised account of the double role of warrants, illuminates the domain specificity of scientific argumentation and the restrictions to (...) which the confrontation and opening stages of scientific critical discussions are subjected. In regard to the argumentation stage, examples are given to show that a general account of argumentation, as advocated by informal logicians, is not applicable to arguments in science. Furthermore, although patterns of inference differ in various scientific practices, deductive validity is argued to be a crucial notion in the assessment of scientific arguments. Finally, some remarks are made concerning the burden of proof and the concluding stage of scientific argumentation. (shrink)

Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking.

Three contrasting approaches to the epistemology of argument are presented. Each one is naturalistic, drawing upon successful practices as the basis for epistemological virtue. But each looks at very different sorts of practices and they differ greatly as to the manner with which relevant practices may be described. My own contribution relies on a metamathematical reconstruction of mature science, and as such, is a radical break with the usual approaches within the theory of argument.

The periodic table may be seen as the most successful example of inquiry in the history of science, both in terms of practical application and theoretic understanding. As such, it serves as a model for truth as it emerges from inquiry. This paper offers a sketch of a central moment in the history of chemistry that illustrates an intuitive metamathematical construction, a model of emerging truth. The MET, reflecting the structure the surrounds the periodic table, attempts to capture the salient (...) epistemological elements that warrant truth claims based on sets of models that are progressive in light of both empirical and theoretical advance seen over time. (shrink)

Informal logic offers a radical new perspective on the evaluation of arguments. But little work has been done on how deep concepts in the logical foundations of argument need to be modified in light of such efforts. This paper offers an indication of what might be done by sketching a new approach to the theory of entailment, truth and relevance.

The paper explores the work of four contemporary theorists of educational reform, following deep currents in epistemology and the theory of rationality. An examination of the positions yields a controversial epistemological conclusion which promotes the examination of philosophical issues relevant to education and the modernist/postmodernist debate.

Informal logic offers a radical new perspective on the evaluation of arguments. But little work has been done on how deep concepts in the logical foundations of argument need to be modified in light of such efforts. This paper offers an indication of what might be done by sketching a new approach to the theory of entailment, truth and relevance.

Decency requires that a discussion as lengthy as the preceding be handily brought to a close. The seriousness of Siegel's complaints against me do, however, call for a response. In what follows I will address what I take to be Siegel's main criticisms, roughly in the order that they are presented. My responses will be limited to, at most, a few paragraphs. They can do no more than indicate how I would counter the thrust of his critical remarks. As both (...) Siegel and myself readily admit, our positions exhibit deep agreements. As I shall attempt to indicate in what follows, much of what Siegel sees in my arguments as evidence of confusion, or worse, may point to equally deep differences of opinion. Our agreements, as he graciously acknowledges, are relevant to issues at the center of recent philosophy, but, as should be apparent from what follows, so are our possible differences. (shrink)

The paper explores the work of four contemporary theorists of educational reform, following deep currents in epistemology and the theory of rationality. An examination of the positions yields a controversial epistemological conclusion which promotes the examination of philosophical issues relevant to education and the modernist/postmodernist debate.