One aspect of critical reasoning is the analysis and appraisal of claims and arguments. A typical problem, when analysing and appraising arguments, is inconsistent statements. Although several inconsistencies may have deleterious effects on rationality and action, not all of them do. As educators, we also have an obligation to teach this evaluation in a way that does justice to our normal reasoning practices and judgements of inconsistency. Thus, there is a need to determine the acceptable inconsistencies from those that are not, and to impart that information to students. We might ask: What is the best concept of inconsistency for critical reasoning and pedagogy? While the answer might appear obvious to some, the history of philosophy shows that there are many concepts of “inconsistency”, the most common of which comes from classical logic and its reliance on opposing truth-values. The current exemplar of this is the standard truth functional account from propositional logic. Initially, this conception is shown to be problematic, practically, conceptually and pedagogically speaking. Especially challenging from the classical perspective are the concepts of ex contradictione quodlibet and ex falso quodlibet. The concepts may poison the well against any notion of inconsistency, which is not something that should be done unreflectively. Ultimately, the classical account of inconsistency is rejected. In its place, a semantic conception of inconsistency is argued for and demonstrated to handle natural reasoning cases effectively. This novel conception utilises the conceptual antonym theory to explain semantic contrast and gradation, even in the absence of non-canonical antonym pairs. The semantic conception of inconsistency also fits with an interrogative argument model that exploits inconsistency to display semantic contrast in reasons and conclusions. A method for determining substantive inconsistencies follows from this argument model in a 4 straightforward manner. The conceptual fit is then incorporated into the pedagogy of critical reasoning, resulting in a natural approach to reasoning which students can apply to practical matters of everyday life, which include inconsistency. Thus, the best conception of inconsistency for critical reasoning and its pedagogy is the semantic, not the classical. / Philosophy Practical and Systematic Theology / D. Phil

With our modern deluge of information through social media, news and blogs, the importance of giving our children a better understanding of source criticism and critical thinking has become increasingly clear. In the field of critical thinking, the use of argument mapping software, a visual way of structuring arguments, has been shown to increase the understanding of arguments, and college students using the method score as much as three times higher on critical thinking tests.  This thesis presents a simplified digital argument mapping tool, developed in order to explore the feasibility of argument mapping for students in secondary school (aged 13-15). The tool is then tested on two secondary school classes. The thesis shows that the students are proficient at basic argument mapping with the tool, but also that the more complex facets of the method require more instruction in order to be used by the students. Recommendations are presented for further development of the argument mapping tool, as well as further studies of critical thinking using argument mapping in secondary school. The thesis has shown the argument mapping has potential for use in secondary school, and should be further studied. / Med vårt moderna överflöd av information genom sociala media, nyheter och bloggar, så ökar vikten av att ge våra unga en bättre förståelse för källkritik och kritiskt tänkande. I fältet kritiskt tänkande har en metod som kallas argument mapping, en visuell metod för att strukturera argument, visats öka förståelsen av argument, samt vid användning studenter i universitet har metoden ökat resultaten på test i kritiskt tänkande upp till tre gånger. Uppsatsen presenterar ett förenklat digitalt argument mapping-verktyg, utvecklat för att studera hur elever på högstadiet (13-15 år) kan använda sig av metoden, som sedan testas på två högstadieklasser. Resultatet visar att studenterna klarar av grundläggande argument mapping med verktyget, men att de mer komplexa delarna av metoden behöver vidare instruktion för att eleverna ska kunna förstå. Rekommendationer presenteras baserat på den data som samlats in, både för vidareutveckling av det designade verktyget, samt för framtida studier av kritiskt tänkande och argument mapping i högstadiet. Uppsatsen visar att argument mapping har potential för användning av högstadieelever, och bör därmed undersökas vidare.