The relationship between teaching and argumentation is becoming a crucial issue in the field of education and, in particular, science education. Teaching has been analyzed as a dialogue aimed at persuading the interlocutors, introducing a conceptual change that needs to be grounded on the audience’s background knowledge. This paper addresses this issue from a perspective of argumentation studies. Our claim is that argumentation schemes, namely abstract patterns of argument, can be an instrument for reconstructing the tacit premises in students’ argumentative (...) reasoning and retrieving the background beliefs that are the basis of their arguments. On this perspective, the process of premise reconstruction is followed by a heuristic reasoning process aimed at discovering the students’ previous intuitions that can explain the premises and concepts that are left unexpressed in their arguments. The theoretical insights advanced in this paper are illustrated through selected examples taken from activities concerning predictive claims on scientific issues. (shrink)

This article draws on analysis of a variety of problems emerging from practical applications of Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) to propose a fundamental evolution of decision support models from the traditional single decision-spine model to the decision-hedgehog. It positions decision making through the construction of narratives making the rhizome that constitutes the body of the hedgehog with the fundamental aim of enriching understanding of the contexts of decision making. Localized processes constructing and exploring prescriptions for action within a plethora (...) of decision spines are rooted in this rhizome. It identifies a synthesis of theories that influence decision making within organizations and proposes a comprehensive system of Group Decision Authoring and Communication Support (GDACS). In doing so it proposes that the iterative development of collective narrative within an organizing system engaged with complex decision making leads to active engagement with implementation - a process we call Collaborative Authoring of Outcomes. Throughout, the article outlines the implications for the organization of GDACS and proposes a comprehensive architecture that enables this approach. (shrink)

In this paper, I will analyze, as an example of political discourse, the songs used by Spain's two main political parties in the 2008 general elections. Just like other texts used in political electoral discourse, these songs form a part of a public and ideological discourse aimed at the election of a candidate. The whole of the candidate's discourse is aimed at convincing the electorate that she/he and his/her party are the best choice, while the opposing candidate is the worst. (...) In this paper, I will analyze how this strategy, quite typical in political ideological electoral discourse, is put into practice in the two songs. (shrink)

Premissary relevance is a property of arguments understood as speech act complexes. It is explicable in terms of the idea of a premise's lending support to a conclusion. Premissary relevance is a function of premises belonging to a set which authoritatively warrants an inference to a conclusion. An authoritative inference warrant will have associated with it a conditional proposition which is true— that is to say, which can be justified. The study of the Aristotelian doctrine of topoi or argument schemes (...) may contribute to the task of identifying authoritative warrants. (shrink)

How do Dutch people let each other know that they disagree? What do they say when they want to resolve their difference of opinion by way of an argumentative discussion? In what way do they convey that they are convinced by each other’s argumentation? How do they criticize each other’s argumentative moves? Which words and expressions do they use in these endeavors? By answering these questions this short essay provides a brief inventory of the language of argumentation in Dutch.

Some conspicuous characteristics of argumentation as we all know this phenomenon from our shared everyday experiences are in my view vital to its theoretical treatment because they should have methodological consequences for the way in which argumentation research is conducted. To start with, argumentation is in the first place a communicative act complex, which is realized by making functional verbal communicative moves.

Each one of the five books authored or co-authored by Frans van Eemeren which have so far been translated into Spanish clearly fulfills a different role. Following the chronological order, we first have Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1984; Spanish translation 2013), a book that contains the theoretical spadework in the field of pragmatics on which the whole edifice of pragma-dialectics is erected. Then follows Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992; Spanish translation 2002, (...) 22007), which is the first full presentation of the Standard Theory of Pragma-Dialectics complete with its explanation of fallacies as violations of the rules of critical discussion. In the third place comes my favourite book—Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation (van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Snoeck Henkemans 2002; Spanish translation, 2006)—a rare combination of sophisticated theory (again, the Standard Theory) tersely an. (shrink)

En las últimas dos décadas, en el proceso de gobernanza de la Unión Europea se ha ido debilitando progresivamente la importancia del sentido específicamente intelectual de la ideología, en favor de los procesos técnicos de resolución de problemas. Un cambio que podríamos denominar de desintelectualización de la hegemonía. El consenso no se genera entorno a una visión del mundo, sino mas bien sobre qué grupo particular tiene que ser responsable de la gestión administrativa de la UE. El discurso de la (...) gobernanza, en consecuencia, ha desplazado su foco hacia modalidades que se desarrollan para hacer funcionar este policy making: las configuraciones institucionales devienen, necesaria y aparentemente, menos impositivas que en el pasado. La dirección tecnopolítica como capacidad de resolver los problemas, y coordinar a la sociedad, es contextualmente una dirección política mediada dada su capacidad de mando. En efecto, se otorga la dirección en actores que no se presentan como parte de la clase dominante, sino como intelectuales, profesionales de la política, que sólo indirectamente comparten la defensa de los intereses del corporativismo europeo que, de esta forma, se siguen representando como intereses más bien comunes. (shrink)