Wuppertal, Universiẗat, Diss., 2001.

Zugl.: Kiel, Univ., Diss., 2008

Abstract argumentation frameworks are a widely used formalism in the field of artificial intelligence. They are used to represent conflicting information by means of a set of arguments and an attack relation. The main problem studied in the literature is their evaluation, i.e., the determination of the justified points of view on the status (accepted or not) of the arguments. The research in this thesis is motivated by the idea that this is not a static process, and that there are many real life examples in which external information plays a role. We address this issue from three points of view.First, we look at intervention and observation in argumentation. These are notions usually studied in the context of causal networks, which are structures used to encode causal connections between events. In these models, an intervention represents the active causation of an event in the interest of predicting the effects, while the passive observation of an event allows one to infer both the most likely causal explanation as well as the effects. In argumentation, intervention captures a hypothetical mode of arguing, where we hypothetically fix the status of an argument in the interest of determining the effects.An observation, on the other hand, captures a revision process: changing the status of an argument requires us to retrace our steps in the line of reasoning that led to the initial status and to accept the most likely hypothesis that explains the new status. We propose models for these two types of reasoning and analyze them using a postulate-based approach. Second, we develop a model of abduction in argumentation, where changes to an argumentation framework act as hypotheses to explain an observation. We present dialogical proof theories for the main decision problems (i.e., finding hypotheses that explain an observation) and show that this model can be instantiated on the basis of abductive logic programs.Third, we look at change in preference-based argumentation. Preferences have been introduced in argumentation to encode, for example, relative strength of arguments.An underexposed aspect in these models is change of preferences. We present a dynamic model of preferences in argumentation, based on what we call property-based argumentation frameworks. It is based on Dietrich and List's model of property-based preference and provides an account of how and why preferences in argumentation may change. The idea is that preferences over arguments are derived from preferences over properties of arguments and change as the result of moving to different motivational states. We also provide a dialogical proof theory that establishes whether there exists some motivational state in which an argument is accepted. / Abstract argumentation frameworks are a widely used formalism in the field of artificial intelligence. They are used to represent conflicting information by means of a set of arguments and an attack relation. The main problem studied in the literature is their evaluation, i.e., the determination of the justified points of view on the status (accepted or not) of the arguments. The research in this thesis is motivated by the idea that this is not a static process, and that there are many real life examples in which external information plays a role. We address this issue from three points of view.First, we look at intervention and observation in argumentation. These are notions usually studied in the context of causal networks, which are structures used to encode causal connections between events. In these models, an intervention represents the active causation of an event in the interest of predicting the effects, while the passive observation of an event allows one to infer both the most likely causal explanation as well as the effects. In argumentation, intervention captures a hypothetical mode of arguing, where we hypothetically fix the status of an argument in the interest of determining the effects.An observation, on the other hand, captures a revision process: changing the status of an argument requires us to retrace our steps in the line of reasoning that led to the initial status and to accept the most likely hypothesis that explains the new status. We propose models for these two types of reasoning and analyze them using a postulate-based approach. Second, we develop a model of abduction in argumentation, where changes to an argumentation framework act as hypotheses to explain an observation. We present dialogical proof theories for the main decision problems (i.e., finding hypotheses that explain an observation) and show that this model can be instantiated on the basis of abductive logic programs.Third, we look at change in preference-based argumentation. Preferences have been introduced in argumentation to encode, for example, relative strength of arguments.An underexposed aspect in these models is change of preferences. We present a dynamic model of preferences in argumentation, based on what we call property-based argumentation frameworks. It is based on Dietrich and List's model of property-based preference and provides an account of how and why preferences in argumentation may change. The idea is that preferences over arguments are derived from preferences over properties of arguments and change as the result of moving to different motivational states. We also provide a dialogical proof theory that establishes whether there exists some motivational state in which an argument is accepted.

This study was designed to explore pupils¡¦ argumentation ability and understanding about the nature of science during the argumentation activities. The method of quasi-experiment with non-equivalent group pretest-posttest design was employed. One class of 5th graders (N=22) was selected as the experimental group with 8-week argumentation instruction, and the other class (N=22) with the similar backgrounds taught with traditional instruction was served as the control group. The instruments of Argumentation Ability Test and Nature of Science (NOS) questionnaire were used in pre- and post-tests. The result indicated that the experimental group students outperform their counterparts in argumentation ability. However, there is no significant difference between the two groups on their understanding about the nature of science. Further analysis reveals that the experimental students with contemporary view of NOS make progress differently from those who are with traditional view of NOS.

Ce travail a pour objet la nature et l’explication philosophique de laméthode de construction de la connaissance selon l’épistémologie kantienne. Nous soulignons non seulement l’importance de la pratique sociale de l’argumentation, mais nous mettons également en évidence son rôle dans cette méthode, ainsi que les raisons pour lesquelles Kant en est arrivé à lui donner un tel rôle. Cela nous amène à reconstituer comment Kant a élaboré son argumentation en lien avec son horizon intellectuel (notamment Locke, Crusius, Lambert et Meier). Nous procédons en deux temps : le premier temps est celui de la recherche d’éléments épistémologiques qui interviennent dans la construction de la connaissance, comme le jugement synthétique, la modalité du jugement et la modalité de l’assentiment. Le second est celui de l’étude de la méthode proprement dite, qui se décline en deux activités, à savoir la construction de la direction du travail scientifique à travers le concept d’orientation et la construction de la justification de la connaissance à travers la pratique sociale de l’argumentation. / The purpose of this work is to determine the nature and the philosophical explanation of the method for knowledge construction according to the Kantian epistemology. Not only we emphasize the importance of the social practice of argumentation, but we also shed light on its role in this method,as well as the reasons which led Kant to give such a role to this practice. This leads us to reconstruct how Kant developed his argumentation in relation to his intellectual horizon (in particular Locke, Crusius, Lambert andMeier). We proceed in two steps. The first one is the search for epistemological elements involved in the construction of knowledge such as the synthetic judgement, the modality of judgement and the modality of assent. The secondis the study of the method itself in two parts, namely the construction of the direction of scientific work through the concept of orientation, and the construction of the justification of knowledge through the social practice of argumentation.

Philosophiae Doctor - PhD / This study is part of a larger school-based research project aimed at training science teachers to integrate argumentation into K-12 science instruction. The current study examined the effect of an argumentation-based training programme on pre-service science teachers’ ability to use an argumentation-based instructional model (ABIM) to implement a learner-centred curriculum in selected Eritrean middle school science classrooms. The study was situated within the social constructivist and argumentation theoretical frameworks. A predominately qualitative research approach was utilized to address the purpose and the research questions of this study. The research design was primarily a case study of a cohort of 25 undergraduate middle school pre-service science teachers, enrolled in a teaching practice course in January, 2013 under the auspices of the Department of Science, College of Education at Eritrea Institute of Technology (EIT). None of the pre-service teachers involved in the study had taken a formal course work, workshops or seminars on argumentation instruction. Six of the 25 pre-service teachers were selected for an in-depth qualitative analysis using purposive sampling technique (Groenewald, 2004; Flyvbjerg, 2006). This study utilized multiple data collection instruments including, questionnaire, argument-based tasks, classroom observation, interview, reflective questionnaire, video-tape class lessons and field notes. Argumentation framework as espoused in the work of Toulmin (1958) and Ogunniyi (2004) were utilized as the units of analysis for the data collected in the study. Furthermore, the study considered a variety of validity and ethical protocols to ensure the findings and interpretation generated from the data were valid.

Ce travail se penche sur les formes et enjeux de la réfutation chez Diderot dans le contexte de la polémique religieuse. Le rôle du philosophe dans le combat contre la Superstition n'est pas négligeable, et l'on s'intéresse ici à la manière dont il a été mené. La réfutation n'est pas envisagée dans son sens rhétorique, mais elle est observée comme un outil de la contestation, qui vise d'ailleurs en tout premier lieu les modèles figés qu'engendre la rhétorique traditionnelle. La réfutation, par le mouvement qu'elle provoque en se heurtant à l'assertion qu'elle contredit, a une fonction de réveil. La première partie observe les voies empruntées pour contester, tout en prêtant attention aux diverses figures de l'adversité. Complété par l'examen de la représentation locutoire des adversaires, ce premier temps suggère une échelle de polémicité qui caractériserait les relations de Diderot avec différents types d'opposants. La deuxième partie se concentre sur le traitement de la parole adverse et sur la façon dont l'auteur rapporte les fallacies du discours adverse. Si Diderot le condamne pour son dogmatisme, forcément trompeur, il le condamne également à la mise à mort dès qu'il le fait entrer dans son texte. Enfin, la troisième partie envisage la façon dont la voix philosophique construit sa particularité en s'opposant : Diderot ne se contente pas de dénoncer et d'invalider le discours adverse, il propose son propre contre-discours. L'efficacité de ce dernier est fonction d'une certaine éthique (dont le premier principe serait le respect de la parole autre) à laquelle le philosophe se conformerait, contrairement à la figure ennemie par excellence, le dogmatisme. / The purpose of this study is to observe the features and the scope of the use of refutation in Diderot's works regarding the religious controversy. The philosopher holds a major role in the fight against Superstition, and this study intends to look into the way this fight was put up. Refutation should not be taken here on its rhetorical sense: it is considered as instrumental in the contestation process - which, by the way, above all tackles the lifeless models of the classical rhetoric. Refutation provokes movement by going against the assertion it contradicts; thus it has a function of awakening. In the first part, we look into the different means used to challenge the opposite side, and also the different faces of the opponents. The study of the locutionary positions of these opponents completes this first part, which suggests a scale of polemicity characterising the relationships between Diderot and various kinds of opponents. The second part focuses on the treatment of the opposite discourse and tries to describe how Diderot reports the fallacies of his opponents. Of course Diderot condemns the opposite discourse because of its dogmatism, which necessarily leads to deception, but he also condemns it to death as soon as he includes it in his text. The last part deals with the philosopher's voice constructing its specificity by opposing itself to other ones : not only Diderot denounces and invalidates the opposite discourse, he also conveys his own counter-discourse, whose efficiency is founded on ethical features - among which, first of all, having respect for the other's discourse. The philosopher abides by them, whereas his very enemy, namely dogmatism, does not.

This essay is a qualitative study that examines seven teachers ́ views on argumentative texts. The aim is to examine how teachers work and discuss argumentative texts, and how they work to develop students ́ writing. The main question is: What are the teachers experience, perception and attitude about working with argumentative text? Furthermore: What specific features are important when they mark this type of text? : How do teachers work with formative grading in terms of writing this type of text? Research shows that Swedish students ́ ability to write argumentative texts are inadequate. This study shows that teachers work varied and that they have a positive attitude to the subject. But it also shows that they focus on different abilities when they mark argumentative texts. Some teachers focus on linguistic correctness, while others focus on argumentation, which leads to different marking conventions on the same text. It is also noted that the interviewed teachers do not have a common language when they talk about argumentation, even though the essence is the same.

ABSTRACT The purpose of this essay has been to analyse an incident that received huge attention in the media that took place on February 24 2011 involving the famous fashion designer John Galliano. Galliano who at the time served as a creative director at French luxury fashion house Dior hurled anti-Semitic remarks during an altercation to a couple at Paris café La Perle. We intended to do a study of the material in two parts. The primary focus of our thesis was to analyse six different newspaper articles that involved the incident. We chose to analyse three articles from Great Britain and three from the United States to get a versatile image of the incident. The purpose of the study was to see how the journalists argued for the incident, and see if the varied even though they were based on the same story. The secondary study was to analyse how Dior are working on maintaining their image and which strategies they chose to for its crisis management regarding the incident as an attempt to protect its image. It was performed by analyse statements by the management of Dior in the media. To answer the research questions, we have used the method of qualitative rhetorical content analysis. The method is used to study the argument in various forms of communications. The selected newspapers are The Telegraph (London) and The New York Times (New York). The incident did not just affect Galliano and Dior. The general perception was that the incident left the fashion business in imbalance.  Regarding the crisis management of Dior, these result was that the most startling ones.

Doktorsavhandling--Göteborgs universitet, 2002. / Résumé en anglais. Bibliogr. p. 272-283.