Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Understanding Students’ Reasoning: Argumentation Schemes as an Interpretation Method in Science Education.Aikaterini Konstantinidou & Fabrizio Macagno - 2013 - Science & Education 22 (5):1069-1087.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • What Students' Arguments Can Tell Us: Using Argumentation Schemes in Science Education.Fabrizio Macagno & Aikaterini Konstantinidou - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):225-243.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • The Context of an Argument.G. C. Goddu - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Argumentation as Rule-Justified Claims: Elements of a Conceptual Framework for the Critical Analysis of Argument.Michael Inbar - 1999 - Argumentation 13 (1):27-42.
    The paper outlines a conceptual framework for the critical assessment of argumentation which differs in some of its core characteristics from conventional approaches: it is resolutely semantic rather than formal in its method; it centers on obligations rather than beliefs; and its analytical focus is on the contingent necessity of conclusions, rather than on their persuasiveness or formal validity. The paper briefly illustrates the applications of this conceptual framework by reanalyzing a couple of examples taken from the argumentation analysis literature.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Pregnant Premise Arguments.Scott F. Aikin - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (3):357-363.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • In Just What Sense Should I be Critical? An Exploration into the Notion of ‘Assumption’ and Some Implications for Assessment.Andrés Mejía D. - 2009 - Studies in Philosophy and Education 28 (4):351-367.
    The current dominant approach on the assessment of critical thinking takes as a starting point a conception of criticality that does not commit to any substantive view or context of meaning concerning what issues are relevant to be critical about in society or in life. Nevertheless, as a detailed examination of the identification of assumptions shows, when going from the theory of critical thinking to the praxis of producing and evaluating arguments, the critical person will inevitably make such commitments from (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Enthymeme in Aristotle's Rhetoric: From Argumentation Theory to Logic.Antoine C. Braet - 1999 - Informal Logic 19 (2).
    Which properties are characteristic of the enthymeme in Aristotle's Rhetoric? There is no consensus on this point. The present discussion centres on three properties. 1. Is there always an implicit premise? (Answer: Above all, a pragmatic level and a logical level must be distinguished.) 2. Do the premises consist by definition of probabilities and signs? (Answer: No.). 3. Are all enthymemes reducible to a syllogistic form? (Answer: The literature pertaining to this question is dominated by a false dilemma: an enthymeme (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Argumentation Ab Homine in Philosophy.Fernando Leal - 2021 - Informal Logic 41 (2):219-243.
    Argumentation that uses the beliefs of one’s opponents to refute them is well known. This paper proposes that there is a hitherto unnoticed counterpart to it, to be called ab homine, in which speakers/writers argue through the manner in which they deliver a message. Since the manner of delivery can never be turned into a premise or premises, this form of argumentation—although somewhat resembling Aristotle’s ethos—is much closer to the peculiar force of Socratic elenchos.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark