The core pluralist thesis about logic, broadly construed, is the claim that two or more logics are correct. In this thesis I discuss a uniquely interesting variant of logical pluralism that I call logical contextualism. Roughly, the logical contextualists’ thought is that, for fixed values p and q, the statement “p entails q” and its cognates such as “q is a logical consequence of p” or “the argument from p to q is logically valid,” are true in some contexts and false in others. After developing a contextualist account of logical pluralism I proceed to examine implications that, if true, logical contextualism would have on discussions about reasonable disagreement among epistemic peers and on discussions about the aim and purpose of argumentation. I show that logical contextualism allows for the possibility of logically-based reasonable disagreements among epistemic peers. In the face of such disagreements there is no obligation to revise one’s belief, nor is there any obligation to degrade the peer status of the agent with whom one stands in disagreement. The possibility of logically-based reasonable disagreements, it will be argued, suggests a reconceptualization of the aims and purpose of argumentation. Most accounts of the purpose of argumentation hold that argumentation’s primary purpose is to achieve rational agreement on a contested issue. Such an agreement is thought to require that at least one of the parties in the argumentation change their beliefs or commitments. However, the existence of logically-based reasonable disagreements, I argue, implies that there are some argumentations that ought not to resolve with agreement. Therefore, rather than understanding argumentation as purely an effort to convince an opponent, or as a means to reach consensus, I claim that argumentation ought to be understood as an effort to gain a better understanding of divergent and perhaps irreconcilable perspectives.

The core pluralist thesis about logic, broadly construed, is the claim that two or more logics are correct. In this thesis I discuss a uniquely interesting variant of logical pluralism that I call logical contextualism. Roughly, the logical contextualists’ thought is that, for fixed values p and q, the statement “p entails q” and its cognates such as “q is a logical consequence of p” or “the argument from p to q is logically valid,” are true in some contexts and false in others. After developing a contextualist account of logical pluralism I proceed to examine implications that, if true, logical contextualism would have on discussions about reasonable disagreement among epistemic peers and on discussions about the aim and purpose of argumentation. I show that logical contextualism allows for the possibility of logically-based reasonable disagreements among epistemic peers. In the face of such disagreements there is no obligation to revise one’s belief, nor is there any obligation to degrade the peer status of the agent with whom one stands in disagreement. The possibility of logically-based reasonable disagreements, it will be argued, suggests a reconceptualization of the aims and purpose of argumentation. Most accounts of the purpose of argumentation hold that argumentation’s primary purpose is to achieve rational agreement on a contested issue. Such an agreement is thought to require that at least one of the parties in the argumentation change their beliefs or commitments. However, the existence of logically-based reasonable disagreements, I argue, implies that there are some argumentations that ought not to resolve with agreement. Therefore, rather than understanding argumentation as purely an effort to convince an opponent, or as a means to reach consensus, I claim that argumentation ought to be understood as an effort to gain a better understanding of divergent and perhaps irreconcilable perspectives.

No description available.

The aim of this thesis is to develop theories and formal methods to endow a computing machinery with capabilities to identify, represent, reason and evaluate complex activities that are directed by an individual’s needs, goals, motives, preferences and environment, information which can be inconsistent and incomplete. Current methods for formalising and reasoning about human activity are typically limited to basic actions, e.g., walking, sitting, sleeping, etc., excluding elements of an activity. This research proposes a new formal activity-centric model that captures complex human activity based on a systemic activity structure that is understood as a purposeful, social, mediated, hierarchically organized and continuously developing interaction between people and word. This research has also resulted in a common-sense reasoning method based on argumentation, in order to provide defeasible explanations of the activity that an individual performs based on the activity-centric model of human activity. Reasoning about an activity is based on the novel notion of an argument under semantics-based inferences that is developed in this research, which allows the building of structured arguments and inferring consistent conclusions. Structured arguments are used for explaining complex activities in a bottom-up manner, by introducing the notion of fragments of activity. Based on these fragments, consistent argumentation based interpretations of activity can be generated, which adhere to the activity-centric model of complex human activity. For resembling the kind of deductive analysis that a clinician performs in the assessment of activities, two quantitative measurements for evaluating performance and capacity are introduced and formalized. By analysing these qualifiers using different argumentation semantics, information useful for different purposes can be generated. e.g., such as detecting risk in older adults for falling down, or more specific information about activity performance and activity completion. Both types of information can form the base for an intelligent machinery to provide tailored recommendation to an individual. The contributions were implemented in different proof-of-concept systems, designed for evaluating complex activities and improving individual’s health in daily life. These systems were empirically evaluated with the purpose of evaluating theories and methodologies with potential users. The results have the potential to be utilized in domains such as ambient assisted living, assistive technology, activity assessment and self-management systems for improving health.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-06-02T20:25:21Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 5996.pdf: 1270184 bytes, checksum: 7ede932f24d3c70b29f0b8ba6a3a910e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-02-28 / Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos / The purpose of this thesis is to verify, according to the theoretical assumptions of Discourse Analysis of French tradition, the Pentecostal discourse of televangelism Victory in Christ. This work will aim its constituent character and analyze the enunciative scenes that constitute the discourse, and from that, it will build relationships between its initial discursive formation and remoteness and proximity to other discursive formations. The research corpus consists of six views of the televangelism mentioned above. We consider the concepts of Dominique Maingueneau about constituent discourses; ethos and scene of enunciation; citation and Detachment; Hyperenunciator and Thesaurus Bible; community discursive and positioning . Adds up , in the background , the analysis and description of the arguments used by the enunciator according to the concepts of Pereleman and Tyteca , enrolled in Argumentation Theory, since the arguments are considered constituent elements of enunciative scenes, in other words , they integrate the scene is validated on account of its uses . Among the main events displayed on observation analyzed data are: a discourse of classical Pentecostalism approaching the Pentecostal discursive formation, the use of arguments in relation to what is known about an auditorium with little education and low social status and processing of speech for their accommodation to contemporary society. / O objetivo deste trabalho de mestrado é verificar, segundo os pressupostos teóricos da Análise do Discurso de tradição francesa, o discurso pentecostal do televangelho Vitória em Cristo visando o seu caráter constituinte e analisando as cenas enunciativas que o constitui e, a partir disso, estabelecer relações entre a sua formação discursiva inicial e o seu afastamento e aproximação com outras formações discursivas. O corpus da pesquisa é composto por seis exibições do televangelho em questão. Mobilizam-se os conceitos de Dominique Maingueneau sobre discursos constituintes; ethos e cena da enunciação; citação e destacabilidade; hiperenunciador e o Thesaurus bíblico; comunidade discursiva e posicionamento. Acrescentam-se, em segundo plano, a análise e a descrição dos argumentos usados pelo enunciador segundo os conceitos de Pereleman e Tyteca, inscritos na Teoria da Argumentação, dado que os argumentos são considerados elementos constitutivos da cena enunciativa, dito de outra forma, eles integram a cena que é validada por conta de seus usos. Dentre as principais ocorrências indicadas na observação dos dados analisados estão: um discurso do pentecostalismo clássico que se aproxima da formação discursiva neopentecostal, o uso de argumentos em relação ao que se conhece sobre um auditório com pouca escolaridade e de baixo nível social e a transformação do discurso pela sua acomodação à sociedade contemporânea.

Cette thèse se situe dans le domaine des modèles de l’argumentation en intelligence artificielle. Ces modèles constituent des outils très populaires pour l’étude de raisonnements en présence d’incohérences dans les bases de connaissances et lors de la négociation entre agents et la prise de décision. Un modèle argumentatif est un processus interactionnel principalement basé sur la construction d’arguments et de contre-arguments, l’étude des relations entre ces différents arguments et la mise en place de critères permettant de déterminer le statut de chaque argument afin de sélectionner les arguments (les plus) acceptables.Dans ce cadre, ce travail a porté sur l’étude d’un système particulier : le système d’argumentation déductif. Un argument est alors entendu comme un couple prémisses-conclusion tel que la conclusion soit une formule qui puisse être déduite des prémisses. Nous y avons traité plusieurs questions. Tout d’abord, partant du constat que le raisonnement par l’absurde est valide en logique propositionnelle classique, nous proposons une méthode de génération d’arguments en faveur d’une proposition donnée. Cette approche s’étend au calcul des undercuts canoniques, arguments identifiés comme représentant tous les contre-arguments. Contrairement aux autres approches proposées dans la littérature, notre technique est complète au sens où elle permet de générer, modulo une possible explosion combinatoire, tous les arguments relatifs à une formule logique quelconque. Ensuite, nous avons proposé un cadre d’argumentation en logique conditionnelle. Les logiques conditionnelles sont souvent considérées comme étant tout particulièrement adaptées à la formalisation de raisonnements de nature hypothétique. Leur connecteur conditionnel est en effet souvent plus proche de l’intuition que l’on peut avoir de l’implication que ne l’est l’implication matérielle de la logique propositionnelle classique. Ceci nous permet de proposer un concept de contrariété conditionnelle qui couvre à la fois les situations de conflits logiques fondés sur l’incohérence et une forme particulière de conflit qui ne se traduit pas naturellement par un conflit basé sur l’incohérence : quand un agent affirme une règle de type Si alors, une seconde règle qui peut en être déduite et qui impose la satisfaction de prémisses supplémentaires peut apparaître conflictuelle. Nous étudions alors sur cette base les principaux éléments d’une théorie de l’argumentation dans une logique conditionnelle. Enfin, le dernier point étudié dans ce travail concerne le raisonnement au sujet de ressources consommables, dans un cadre où les formules logiques sont elles mêmes consommées dans le processus déductif. Nous proposons une logique, simple et proche du langage et des principes de la logique propositionnelle classique, permettant le raisonnement à partir de ressources consommables et de quantité bornée. Nous y revisitons également les principaux éléments d’une théorie logique de l’argumentation. / This thesis focus on the field of argumentation models in artificial intelligence. These models form very popular tools to study reasoning under inconsistency in knowledge bases, negotiation between agents, and also in decision making. An argumentative model is an interactional process mainly based on the construction of arguments and counter-arguments, then studying the relations between these arguments, and finally the introduction of some criteria to identifying the status of each argument in order to select the (most) acceptable of them.In this context, this work was dealt with the study of a particular system: the deductive argumentation framework. An argument is then understood as a pair premises-conclusion such that conclusion is a logical formula entailed by premises, a non-ordered collection of logical formulas. We have addressed several issues. First of all, on the basis that reductio ad absurdum is valid in classical propositional logic, we propose a method to compute arguments for a given statement. This approach is extended to generate canonical undercuts, arguments identified as the representative of all counter-arguments. Contrary to the other approaches proposed in the literature, our technique is complete in the sense that all arguments relative to the statement at hand are generated and so are all relevant counter-arguments. Secondly, we proposed a logic based argumentation in conditional logic. Conditional logic is often regarded as an appealing setting for the formalization of hypothetical reasoning. Their conditional connective is often regarded as a very suitable connective to encode many implicative reasoning patterns real-life and attempts to avoid some pitfalls of material implication of propositional logic. This allows us to put in light and encompass a concept of conditional contrariety thats covers both usual inconsistency-based conflict and a specific form of conflict that often occurs in real-life argumentation: i.e., when an agent asserts an If then rule, it can be argued that the satisfaction of additional conditions are required for the conclusion of a rule to hold. Then, in that case we study the main foundational concepts of an argumentation theory in conditional logic. Finally, the last point investigated in this work concerns the reasoning about bounded resources, within a framework in which logical formulas are themselves consumed in the deductive process. First, a simple variant of Boolean logic is introduced, allowing us to reason about consuming resources. Then, the main concepts of logic-based argumentation are revisited in this framework.

Philosophiae Doctor - PhD / The study investigated the impact of a dialogical argumentation instructional model (DAIM) as an intervention teaching strategy to assist pre-service science teachers to implement integrated science-indigenous knowledge (IK) lessons during their seven week block teaching practice at schools in the Western Cape. This imperative is found in Specific Aim 3 of the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) of the South African School Curriculum (Department of Basics Education, 2011). The study focussed on the pre-post conceptions of pre-service science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science and the nature of indigenous knowledge. In addition the study examined pre-service teachers’ sense of self-efficacy in deploying a dialogical argumentation instructional model to implement an integrated science-IK lesson. The sample consisted of a cohort of thirty (30) Post-graduate Certificate of Education (PGCE) students training to teach at the Further Education and Training (FET) phase of school. They were a combined class enrolled for method in Natural Sciences, Life Sciences and Physical Sciences. A mixed methods approach was used to generate quantitative and qualitative data using a series of questionnaires, reflective diaries, journals and focus group interviews. Transcripts provided a rich bank of data of which only exemplars were used to highlight trends and to illustrate how theoretical constructs were used as analytical tools. The theoretical constructs used were Toulmin’s (1958/2003) Argumentation Pattern (TAP), Ogunniyi’s (1997) Contiguity Argumentation Theory (CAT) and Banduras’ Social Cognitive Theory (1986). The findings showed that the pre-service teachers appeared to overestimate their sense of self-efficacy (i.e. the ease and comfort) in using DAIM to implement a science- IK curriculum at the pre-test than at the post-test. The study also identified important implications for policy, teacher training programmes, teaching practice, pre-service science teachers, learners and further research. Furthermore, the pre-service reflective experiences indicated their increased awareness of the challenges and successes related to using dialogical argumentation to integrate a science-IK lesson. The most important contribution of this study to an argumentation paradigm was the emergence of a visual model called the Pyramid Argumentation Model that succinctly connected the apparent disparate module units in a holistic way (To be discussed in follow-up reports). The findings revealed numerous complexities as the participants navigated their own cosmologies of a scientific worldview and that of their indigenous knowledge worldview. Finally, the findings have not only corroborated the findings in earlier studies with respect to the merits and demerits of argumentation instruction but also identified various challenges that prospective and even practicing teachers might encounter in an attempt to make school science relevant to the sociocultural environment of learners especially those living in indigenous or traditional societies like the participants in this study.

Magister Educationis - MEd / Over the last 15 years the Department of Education has rolled out various projects in an attempt to improve Mathematics and Science results and to increase the amount of learners who exit their schooling with those subjects. The 2010 - 2014 matric results show a decrease in the number of students who exiting with Science. One of the factors that might influence the learners' decision to do science can be ascribed to the methodologies that the teachers are using to teach Science. In response to the latter, this study investigated the cognitive shifts of grade two learners' conceptual knowledge of the day and night cycle after being exposed to a Dialogical Argumentation Based Instructional Model. The Contiguity Argumentation Theory (CAT) and Toulmin's Argumentation Pattern (TAP) were used as a framework to capture and interrogate learners' arguments with argumentation frames developed to categorize the learners’ argument responses. Analytical approaches were used to assess learners' argumentation skills along four stages namely intra-argumentation, inter-argumentation, whole class discussion and trans-argumentation. The study employed both quantitative and qualitative methods. The data was collected from grade 2 learners in a primary school in Cape Town, Western Cape Province in the form of a pre-post questionnaire, focus group interviews and classroom observation. The major findings of this study indicated that ● The Dialogical Argumentation Instructional model can assist learners to develop argumentative skills. ● The grade two learners in this study had alternative conceptions regarding the day and night cycle which is not scientifically valid. ● The views that learners hold are egocentric. ● DAIM is an effective teaching strategy to help learners to eliminate the misconceptions This study has shown that the Dialogical Argumentation Instructional Model (DAIM) seems to be effective in enhancing the learners’ understanding of the day and night cycle. / National Research Foundation

Magister Educationis - MEd / The clamour in the country about the poor performance of learners in the area of physical science is a concern and this problem had been attributed to different facets of learning which include the amendment of curriculum over the years. But my question is; can the curriculum amendment succeed without effective teaching approaches? This poignant question formed the central concern for this investigation. This study examined two cohorts of grade seven learners’ conceptions of conservation of energy using a Dialogical Argumentation Instructional Model (DAIM) as well as the Traditional Lecture Method (TLM). The study involved 48 learners selected from two public schools in Cape Town. Using a quasi-experimental (Non-equivalent groups) design, the study examined the two groups from different schools (24 learners in each). It exposed one group to the Traditional Lecture Method (TLM) and the other group to a Dialogical Argumentation Instructional Model (DAIM) which was based on two argumentation frameworks– Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern (TAP) and Contiguity Argumentation Theory (CAT).

Cette thèse porte sur la modélisation d’un système d’aide à l’évolution du web de données en utilisant un système multi-agents. Plus particulièrement, elle a pour but de guider l’utilisateur dans sa démarche de modification d’une base de connaissances RDF. Elle aborde les problématiques suivantes : intégrer de nouveaux triplets résultant de l'annotation des documents, proposer le changement adéquat dans les deux niveaux, ontologie et données, en se basant sur des mesures de similarités, analyser les effets de changements sur la qualité des données et la gestion des versions en prenant en considération d'éventuels conflits. Cette question de recherche complexe engendre plusieurs problématiques dont les réponses sont dépendantes les unes des autres. Pour cela, nous nous sommes orientées vers le paradigme agent pour décomposer le problème. Il s’agit de répartir les tâches dans des agents. La coopération entre les agents permet de répondre au besoin de dépendance évoqué ci-dessus pour bénéficier de l’aspect dynamique et combler les inconvénients d’un système modulaire classique. Le choix d’un tel écosystème nous a permis de proposer une démarche d’évaluation de la qualité des données en employant un modèle d’argumentation. Il s’agit d’établir un consensus entre les agents pour prendre en considération les trois dimensions intrinsèques : la cohérence, la concision la complétude, la validation syntaxique et sémantique. Nous avons modélisé les métriques d’évaluation de chaque dimension sous forme d’arguments. L’acceptation ou pas d’un argument se décide via les préférences des agents.Chaque modification donne lieu à une nouvelle version de la base de connaissances RDF. Nous avons choisi de garder la dernière version de la base de connaissances. Pour cette raison, nous avons choisi de préserver les URI des ressources. Pour garder la trace des changements, nous annotons chaque ressource modifiée. Néanmoins, une base de connaissances peut être modifiée par plusieurs collaborateurs ce qui peut engendrer des conflits. Ils sont conjointement le résultat d’intégration de plusieurs données et le chevauchement des buts des agents. Pour gérer ces conflits, nous avons défini des règles. Nous avons appliqué notre travail de recherche au domaine de médecine générale. / In this thesis, we investigate the evolution of RDF datasets from documents and LOD. We identify the following issues : the integration of new triples, the proposition of changes by taking into account the data quality and the management of differents versions.To handle with the complexity of the web of data evolution, we propose an agent based argumentation framework. We assume that the agent specifications could facilitate the process of RDF dataset evolution. The agent technology is one of the most useful solution to cope with a complex problem. The agents work as a team and are autonomous in the sense that they have the ability to decide themselves which goals they should adopt and how these goals should be acheived. The Agents use argumentation theory to reach a consensus about the best change alternative. Relatively to this goal, we propose an argumentation model based on the metric related to the intrinsic dimensions.To keep a record of all the occured modifications, we are focused on the ressource version. In the case of a collaborative environment, several conflicts could be generated. To manage those conflicts, we define rules.The exploited domain is general medecine.