Results for 'argument evaluation'

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  2
    Argument Evaluation in Multi-Agent Justification Logics.Alfredo Burrieza & Antonio Yuste-Ginel - forthcoming - Logic Journal of the IGPL.
    Argument evaluation, one of the central problems in argumentation theory, consists in studying what makes an argument a good one. This paper proposes a formal approach to argument evaluation from the perspective of justification logic. We adopt a multi-agent setting, accepting the intuitive idea that arguments are always evaluated by someone. Two general restrictions are imposed on our analysis: non-deductive arguments are left out and the goal of argument evaluation is fixed: supporting a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. The Methodological Approach to Argument Evaluation: Rules of Defining as Applied to Assessing Arguments.Marcin Koszowy - 2013 - Filozofia Nauki 21 (1).
    The main thesis underlying the methodological approach to argument evaluation holds that some arguments which employ knowledge-gaining procedures can be suc-cessfully evaluated by applying tools elaborated by the methodology of science, such as the rules for reasoning, classifying objects, defining, and questioning. The applica-tion of those rules to argument evaluation consists in comparing them with proce-dures employed in the case of argumentative practices performed either in scientific inquiry or in everyday life. In order to show how (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  3.  8
    Teaching Argument Evaluation in An Introductory Philosophy Course.Jonathan Lavery & Jeff Mitscherling - 1998 - The Paideia Archive: Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 43:67-74.
    One of the greatest challenges in teaching an introductory philosophy course is convincing students that there are, indeed, reliable standards for the evaluation of arguments. Too often introductory students criticize an argument simply by contesting the truth of one of its claims. And far too often, the only claim in an argument that meets serious objections is its conclusion. For many students, the idea that an argument displays a structure which can be evaluated on its own (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  27
    Argument Evaluation Contest Results.Jonathan E. Adler - 1991 - Informal Logic 13 (3).
    In Vol. XI, No.1, this journal announced an argument analysis contest. Two eminent colleagues agreed to serve as judges-Professor Henry W. Johnstone, Jr. and Professor Michael Scriven. In short order, four entries were received and sent off to the judges, who had no knowledge of the contestants' identities, and in due course the judges' verdicts were delivered. Immediately below we have reproduced the argument which was to be analyzed, along with the rules of the contest, followed by the (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  15
    Argument Evaluation.Gráinne Cooney - 1986 - Philosophical Studies 31:551-552.
  6.  24
    Argument Evaluation.John Alan Holmes - 1993 - Teaching Philosophy 16 (2):177-179.
  7.  49
    Argument Evaluation Contest.Informal Logic - 1989 - Informal Logic 11 (1):1.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  8.  3
    Argument Evaluation[REVIEW]Gráinne Cooney - 1986 - Philosophical Studies (Dublin) 31:551-552.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  66
    The Authority of the Fallacies Approach to Argument Evaluation.Catherine Hundleby - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (3):279-308.
    Popular textbook treatments of the fallacies approach to argument evaluation employ the Adversary Method identified by Janice Moulton (1983) that takes the goal of argumentation to be the defeat of other arguments and that narrows the terms of discourse in order to facilitate such defeat. My analysis of the textbooks shows that the Adversary Method operates as a Kuhnian paradigm in philosophy, and demonstrates that the popular fallacies pedagogy is authoritarian in being unresponsive to the scholarly developments in (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  10.  13
    Differentiating Theories From Evidence: The Development of Argument Evaluation Abilities in Adolescence and Early Adulthood.Petra Barchfeld & Beate Sodian - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (4):396-416.
    An argument evaluation inventory distinguishing between different levels of theory-evidence differentiation was designed corresponding to the levels of argument observed in argument generation tasks. Five scenarios containing everyday theories about a social problem, and arguments to support those theories were presented to 170 participants from two age groups (15 and 22 years) and different educational tracks. Participants had to rate the validity of arguments proposed by a story figure, to support the theory, to choose the best (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  11.  34
    The Epistemic Approach to Argument Evaluation: Virtues, Beliefs, Commitments.Patrick Bondy - 2013
    This paper discusses virtue argumentation theory, as modeled on virtue epistemology. It argues that virtues of argumentation are interesting but parasitic on a more fundamental account of what makes arguments good. -/- *Note: this is an unpublished manuscript presented at the 2013 conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. An electronic copy is available in the Conference Archive, linked above.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  12. Considering the Roles of Values in Practical Reasoning Argumentation Evaluation.Michael D. Baumtrog - 2013 - Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA).
    Building upon the role values take in Walton’s theory of practical reasoning, this paper will frame the question of how values should be evaluated into the broader question of what reasonable practical argumentation is. The thesis argued for is that if a positive evaluation of practical reasoning argumentation requires that the argument avoid a morally negative conclusion, then the role of values should be given a central, rather than supportive, position in practical argument evaluation.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  13.  50
    Truth and Argument Evaluation.Patrick Bondy - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (2):142-158.
    The aim of this paper is to defend the claim that arguments are truth-directed, and to discuss the role that truth plays in the evaluation of arguments that are truth-directed. It concludes that the proper place of truth is in the metatheory in terms of which a theory of evaluation is to be worked out, rather than in the theory of evaluation itself as a constraint on premise adequacy.
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  14.  37
    The Relevance of Intention in Argument Evaluation.Charlotte Jørgensen - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (2):165-174.
    The paper discusses intention as a rhetorical key term and argues that a consideration of rhetor’s intent should be maintained as relevant to both the production and critique of rhetorical discourse. It is argued that the fact that the critic usually has little or no access to the rhetor’s mind does not render intention an irrelevant factor. Rather than allowing methodological difficulties to constrain critical inquiry, I suggest some ways in which the critic can incorporate the rhetor’s intention in evaluating (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  15.  37
    Some Artificial Intelligence Tools for Argument Evaluation: An Introduction.Douglas Walton - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (3):317-340.
    Even though tools for identifying and analyzing arguments are now in wide use in the field of argumentation studies, so far there is a paucity of resources for evaluating real arguments, aside from using deductive logic or Bayesian rules that apply to inductive arguments. In this paper it is shown that recent developments in artificial intelligence in the area of computational systems for modeling defeasible argumentation reveal a different approach that is currently making interesting progress. It is shown how these (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  16.  6
    Schemes, Critical Questions, and Complete Argument Evaluation.Shiyang Yu & Frank Zenker - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (4):469-498.
    According to the argument scheme approach, to evaluate a given scheme-saturating instance completely does entail asking all critical questions relevant to it. Although this is a central task for argumentation theorists, the field currently lacks a method for providing a complete argument evaluation. Approaching this task at the meta-level, we combine a logical with a substantive approach to the argument schemes by starting from Toulmin’s schema: ‘data, warrant, so claim’. For the yet more general schema: ‘premise; (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  17.  16
    Attributed Favourable Relevance and Argument Evaluation.Derek Allen - 1996 - Informal Logic 18 (2).
    I criticize a case made by George Bowles for a certain theory pertaining to the evaluation of arguments on which the (degree of) attributed favourable relevance of an argument's premises to its conclusion is relevant to its evaluation, but nevertheless argue that such favourable relevance is indeed relevant to an argument's evaluation.
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18.  45
    Douglas Walton: Argument Evaluation and Evidence: Springer, 2016, 286 Pp. [REVIEW]Marcello Di Bello & Bart Verheij - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):301-307.
  19.  32
    The Role of Personality in Argument Evaluation.Brenda Oyer, Mark Gillespie, Mohammed Issah & Daniel Fasko - 2012 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 27 (2):40-49.
    Argument evaluation, the ability to separate prior belief from evaluation of the quality of an argument, is an essential element of critical thinking. The present study examined the ability of three personality traits (dogmatism, openness to experience, and open-mindedness) to predict argument evaluation quality and belief bias. One hundred and twelve undergraduate students completed the Argument Evaluation Test (Stanovich & West, 1997), measures of Dogmatism, Open-Mindedness, Openness to Experience, and a Vocabulary test. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. Wayne Grennan, Argument Evaluation[REVIEW]D. Crossley - 1985 - Philosophy in Review 5:441-443.
    No categories
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21. Wayne Grennan, Argument Evaluation Reviewed By.D. J. Crossley - 1985 - Philosophy in Review 5 (10):441-443.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22.  1
    Film as Ethical Argument: Evaluating Munich's Case Against Targeted Killing.Avery Plaw - 2007 - Film and Philosophy 11:121.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23.  1
    Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation.Frans H. Van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst & A. Francisca Sn Henkemans - 2015 - Routledge.
    This book concentrates on argumentation as it emerges in ordinary discourse, whether the discourse is institutionalized or strictly informal. Crucial concepts from the theory of argumentation are systematically discussed and explained with the help of examples from real-life discourse and texts. The basic principles are explained that are instrumental in the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse. Methodical instruments are offered for identifying differences of opinion, analyzing and evaluating argumentation and presenting arguments in oral and written discourse. In addition, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   25 citations  
  24. Evaluating Arguments for the Sex/Gender Distinction.Tomas Bogardus - 2020 - Philosophia 48 (3):873-892.
    Many philosophers believe that our ordinary English words man and woman are “gender terms,” and gender is distinct from biological sex. That is, they believe womanhood and manhood are not defined even partly by biological sex. This sex/gender distinction is one of the most influential ideas of the twentieth century on the broader culture, both popular and academic. Less well known are the reasons to think it’s true. My interest in this paper is to show that, upon investigation, the arguments (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  25.  94
    Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme.Bart Verheij - 2001 - Argumentation 19 (3):347-371.
    Toulmin’s scheme for the layout of arguments represents an influential tool for the analysis of arguments. The scheme enriches the traditional premises-conclusion model of arguments by distinguishing additional elements, like warrant, backing and rebuttal. The present paper contains a formal elaboration of Toulmin’s scheme, and extends it with a treatment of the formal evaluation of Toulmin-style arguments, which Toulmin did not discuss at all. Arguments are evaluated in terms of a so-called dialectical interpretation of their assumptions. In such an (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  26.  34
    The Zen of Argument Analysis: Reflections on Informal Logic's Argument Evaluation Contest.Don S. Levi - 1994 - Informal Logic 16 (2).
    An argumentative passage that might appear to be an instance of denying the antecedent will generally admit of an alternative interpretation, one on which the conditional contained by the passage is a preface to the argument rather than a premise of it. On this interpretation. which generally is a more charitable one, the conditional plays a certain dialectical role and, in some cases, a rhetorical role as welL Assuming only a very weak principle of exigetical charity, I consider what (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  27.  17
    Edward Schiappa (Ed.) Warranting Assent: Case Studies in Argument Evaluation.Abbott Don Paul - 1997 - Argumentation 11 (2):266-269.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  28.  5
    The Role of Personal Values in Argument Evaluation.Donald Hatcher - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  29.  39
    The Logical Evaluation of Arguments.David Botting - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (2):167-180.
    In this paper I will defend the controversial thesis that all argumentation in natural language can be reconstructed, for the purposes of assessment, as a deductively valid argument. Evaluation of the argumentation amounts to evaluation of the logical coherence of the premises. I will be taking the pragma-linguistic theory of Bermejo-Luque as an initial starting point.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  30.  31
    Dialectics, Evaluation, and Argument.Maurice A. Finocchiaro - 2003 - Informal Logic 23 (1).
    A critical examination of the dialectical approach, focusing on a comparison ofthe illative and the dialectical definitions of argument. I distinguish a moderate, a strong and a hyper dialectical conception of argument. I critique Goldman's argument for the moderate conception and Johnson's argument for the strong conception, and argue that the moderate conception is correct.
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  31.  47
    “This Argument Fails for Two Reasons…”: A Linguistic Analysis of Judicial Evaluation Strategies in US Supreme Court Judgments. [REVIEW]Davide Mazzi - 2010 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 23 (4):373-385.
    The centrality of argumentation in the judicial process is an age-old acquisition of research on legal discourse. Notwithstanding the deep insights provided by legal theoretical and philosophical works, only recently has judicial argumentation been tackled in its linguistic dimension. This paper aims to contribute to the development of linguistic studies of judicial argumentation, by shedding light on evaluation as a prominent aspect in the construction of the judge’s argumentative position. Evaluation as a deep structure of judicial argumentation is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  32.  23
    Towards Formal Representation and Evaluation of Arguments.Marcin Selinger - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (3):379-393.
    The aim of this paper is to propose foundations for a formal model of representation and numerical evaluation of a possibly broad class of arguments, including those that occur in natural discourse. Since one of the most characteristic features of everyday argumentation is the occurrence of convergent reasoning, special attention should be paid to the operation ⊕, which allows us to calculate the logical force of convergent arguments with an accuracy not offered by other approaches.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  33.  5
    Commentary On: Patrick Bondy's "The Epistemic Approach to Argument Evaluation: Virtues, Beliefs, Commitments".Bruce Russell - unknown
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34.  71
    Evaluating a Legal Argument Program: The BankXX Experiments. [REVIEW]Edwina L. Rissland, David B. Skalak & M. Timur Friedman - 1997 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):1-74.
    In this article we evaluate the BankXX program from several perspectives. BankXX is a case-based legal argument program that retrieves cases and other legal knowledge pertinent to a legal argument through a combination of heuristic search and knowledge-based indexing. The program is described in detail in a companion article in Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 1--71, 1996. Three perspectives are used to evaluate BankXX:(1) classical information retrieval measures of precision and recall applied against a hand-coded baseline; (2) knowledge-representation (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  35.  41
    Evaluating Arguments and Making Meta-Arguments.Daniel H. Cohen - 2001 - Informal Logic 21 (2).
    This paper explores the outlines of a framework for evaluating arguments. Among the factors to take into account are the strength of the arguers' inferences, the level of their engagement with objections raised by other interlocutors, and their effectiveness in rationally persuading their target audiences. Some connections among these can be understood only in the context of meta-argumentation and meta-rationality. The Principle of Meta-Rationality (PMR)--that reasoning rationally includes reasoning about rationality-is used to explain why it can be rational to resist (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  36.  16
    Evaluating Science Arguments: Evidence, Uncertainty, and Argument Strength.Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn - 2009 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 15 (3):199-212.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  37. Evaluating Argumentative Moves in Medical Consultations.Sarah Bigi - 2012 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):51-65.
    The relevance of context has been acknowledged also recently as a fundamental element for the correct evaluation of argumentative moves within institutional fields of interaction. Indeed, not considering the larger culture-specific and social features of the context within which the interactions take place poses problems of interpretation of the data and comparability of results. Starting from these considerations, the paper aims at discussing a model for the description of the social context of interaction that may allow for a better (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  38.  15
    Evaluating Arguments From a Play About Ethics in Science: A Study with Medical Learners.Pablo Archila - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (1):53-76.
    Developing critical thinking ability is one of the main goals of medical education, in part because it enhances clinical reasoning, a vital competence in clinical practice. However, there is limited evidence suggesting ways to effectively teach critical thinking in the classroom. Here, we describe the use of a drama-based critical thinking classroom scenario. The study used a mixed-methods approach with both quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaire responses. Ninety-one medical students in Colombia were asked to identify and evaluate arguments regarding (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  39.  31
    Evaluation of the Plausibility of a Conclusion Derivable From Several Arguments with Uncertain Premises.Christian George - 1999 - Thinking and Reasoning 5 (3):245 – 281.
    Previous studies with adult participants have investigated reasoning from one or two uncertain premises with simple deductive arguments. Three exploratory experiments were designed to extend these results by investigating the evaluation of the plausibility of the conclusion of "combined" arguments, i.e. arguments constituted by two or more "atomic" standard arguments which each involved the same conclusion and one uncertain premise out of two. One example is "If she meets Nicolas it is very improbable she will go to the swimming (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  40.  26
    Automatic Evaluation of Design Alternatives with Quantitative Argumentation.Pietro Baroni, Marco Romano, Francesca Toni, Marco Aurisicchio & Giorgio Bertanza - 2015 - Argument and Computation 6 (1):24-49.
    This paper presents a novel argumentation framework to support Issue-Based Information System style debates on design alternatives, by providing an automatic quantitative evaluation of the positions put forward. It also identifies several formal properties of the proposed quantitative argumentation framework and compares it with existing non-numerical abstract argumentation formalisms. Finally, the paper describes the integration of the proposed approach within the design Visual Understanding Environment software tool along with three case studies in engineering design. The case studies show the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  41.  24
    Argumentative Bluff in Eristic Discussion: An Analysis and Evaluation.Jan Albert van Laar - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (3):383-398.
    How does the analysis and evaluation of argumentation depend on the dialogue type in which the argumentation has been put forward? This paper focuses on argumentative bluff in eristic discussion. Argumentation cannot be presented without conveying the pretence that it is dialectically reasonable, as well as, at least to some degree, rhetorically effective. Within eristic discussion it can be profitable to engage in bluff with respect to such claims. However, it will be argued that such bluffing is dialectically inadmissible, (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  42.  35
    The Arguments From Coherence: Analysis and Evaluation.Bertea Stefano - 2005 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 25 (3):369-391.
    In this article, the theory of argumentation set out by the Dutch scholars Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst is brought to bear in subjecting the general form of the argument from coherence to a critical analysis. First, a distinction is brought out between two basic kinds of argument from coherence: in one use this argumentative structure occurs as a sequence of two arguments establishing that a standpoint constitutes a particular instantiation or a inherent quality of the system (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  43.  54
    Goals in Argumentation: A Proposal for the Analysis and Evaluation of Public Political Arguments.Dima Mohammed - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (3):221-245.
    In this paper, I review and compare major literature on goals in argumentation scholarship, aiming to answer the question of how to take the different goals of arguers into account when analysing and evaluating public political arguments. On the basis of the review, I suggest to differentiate between the different goals along two important distinctions: first, distinguish between goals which are intrinsic to argumentation and goals which are extrinsic to it and second distinguish between goals of the act of arguing (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  44.  32
    Evaluational Illusions and Skeptical Arguments.Steven L. Reynolds - 1998 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (3):529-558.
    A traditional diagnosis of the error in the Cartesian skeptical arguments holds that they exploit our tendencies to take a representationalist view of perception. Thinking (perhaps not too clearly) that we perceive only our own sensory states, it seems to us that our perceptual beliefs about physical objects must be justified qua explanations of those sensory states. Such justification requires us to have reasons to reject rival explanations, such as the skeptical hypotheses, which we lack. However, those who adopt the (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  45.  8
    Evaluation as Institution: A Contractarian Argument for Needs-Based Economic Evaluation.Wolf H. Rogowski - 2018 - BMC Medical Ethics 19 (1):59.
    There is a gap between health economic evaluation methods and the value judgments of coverage decision makers, at least in Germany. Measuring preference satisfaction has been claimed to be inappropriate for allocating health care resources, e.g. because it disregards medical need. The existing methods oriented at medical need have been claimed to disregard non-consequentialist fairness concerns. The aim of this article is to propose a new, contractarian argument for justifying needs-based economic evaluation. It is based on consent (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  46.  45
    Evaluating a New Logical Argument From Evil.Bruce Langtry - 2021 - Faith and Philosophy 38 (2):229-244.
    J. L. Schellenberg, in “A New Logical Problem of Evil,” published in The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil, argues that (if God exists) God has, of necessity, a disappreciation of evil, operating at a metalevel in such a way as to give God a non-defeasible reason to rule out actualizing a world containing evil. He also argues that since God’s motive in creating the world is to share with finite beings the good that God experiences prior to creation, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47. A Decision Procedure for Evaluating Natural Language Arguments.Moti Mizrahi - 2012 - APA Newsletter on Teaching Philosophy 12 (1):11-12.
    In this paper, I present a decision procedure for evaluating arguments expressed in natural language. I think that other instructors of informal logic and critical thinking might find this decision procedure to be a useful addition to their teaching resources.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  48.  11
    Objective Evaluation of Demonstrative Arguments.Emmanuel Trouche, Jing Shao & Hugo Mercier - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (1):23-43.
    Many experiments suggest that participants are more critical of arguments that challenge their views or that come from untrustworthy sources. However, other results suggest that this might not be true of demonstrative arguments. A series of four experiments tested whether people are influenced by two factors when they evaluate demonstrative arguments: how confident they are in the answer being challenged by the argument, and how much they trust the source of the argument. Participants were not affected by their (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49.  11
    Evaluating Conditional Arguments with Uncertain Premises.Raymond S. Nickerson, Daniel H. Barch & Susan F. Butler - 2018 - Thinking and Reasoning 25 (1):48-71.
    ABSTRACTTreating conditionals as probabilistic statements has been referred to as a defining feature of the “new paradigm” in cognitive psychology. Doing so is attractive for several reasons, but it complicates the problem of assessing the merits of conditional arguments. We consider several variables that relate to judging the persuasiveness of conditional arguments with uncertain premises. We also explore ways of judging the consistency of people's beliefs as represented by components of conditional arguments. Experimental results provide evidence that inconsistencies in beliefs (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  50.  38
    Evaluating Arguments From the Reaction of the Audience.Hugo Mercier & Brent Strickland - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):365 - 378.
    In studying how lay people evaluate arguments, psychologists have typically focused on logical form and content. This emphasis has masked an important yet underappreciated aspect of everyday argument evaluation: social cues to argument strength. Here we focus on the ways in which observers evaluate arguments by the reaction they evoke in an audience. This type of evaluation is likely to occur either when people are not privy to the content of the arguments or when they are (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 1000