Location

Room 1

Document Type

Paper

Keywords

Argument-evaluation, biased beliefs, confirmation bias, critical thinking, dialogue shifts, fallacious arguments, in situ, informal logic, reasoning, the philosophy of argumentation, the psychology of argumentation

Start Date

5-6-2020 11:00 AM

End Date

5-6-2020 12:00 PM

Abstract

The psychology of argumentation (PSA), has added New insight into argumentation theory, that so far has been strongly influenced by the philosophy of argumentation (PHA). There might be a fruitful division of labor between PHA and PSA if PHA, through critical thinking increases awareness based on field studies, whilst PSA provides a perspective for argument evaluation in vitro (referring to a lab).

One assumption with regard to PSA is that reasoning is argumentative and constructed to persuade. Arguers do not primarily activate reasoning for logical purposes; they do so rather to justify particular beliefs as well as actions. Insight from PHA on tactical moves, and outsmarting dialogue shifts, might be decisive for understanding the outcome of a debate or group work, and it thus gives a necessary additional perspective. Another way in which PSA and PHA can complement each other concerns the fact that PSA gathers data in the lab while PHA does so outside the lab.

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS
 
Jun 5th, 11:00 AM Jun 5th, 12:00 PM

Broadening “in situ” for improving argument evaluation?

Room 1

The psychology of argumentation (PSA), has added New insight into argumentation theory, that so far has been strongly influenced by the philosophy of argumentation (PHA). There might be a fruitful division of labor between PHA and PSA if PHA, through critical thinking increases awareness based on field studies, whilst PSA provides a perspective for argument evaluation in vitro (referring to a lab).

One assumption with regard to PSA is that reasoning is argumentative and constructed to persuade. Arguers do not primarily activate reasoning for logical purposes; they do so rather to justify particular beliefs as well as actions. Insight from PHA on tactical moves, and outsmarting dialogue shifts, might be decisive for understanding the outcome of a debate or group work, and it thus gives a necessary additional perspective. Another way in which PSA and PHA can complement each other concerns the fact that PSA gathers data in the lab while PHA does so outside the lab.