Neste estudo, temos por proposta observar o debate político eleitoral, de modo a caracterizá-lo como um evento polêmico em que as opiniões não configuram o objeto principal do discurso dos interlocutores. Acreditamos que os participantes de tal gênero discursivo utilizam manobras argumentativas, que constituem falácias, como uma estratégia; entretanto, tal prática pode acarretar consequências ou efeitos diferentes daquelas tradicionalmente decorrentes de tal manobra. Como fundamentação teórica, aplicamos os conceitos da Teoria Pragmadialética da Argumentação (van Eemeren e Grootendorst: 1984, 1992, 2004), de certa forma conectada à Dialética, mas que apresenta diferenças importantes, principalmente por meio da dicotomia entre os termos Formal e Pragma (derivada de Pragmática). Os elementos pragmáticos que esse termo pressupõe referem-se à Teoria dos Atos de Fala e à Análise do discurso, inspiradas pelas descobertas dos filósofos que analisam a linguagem do cotidiano. Tratamos do emprego da falácia como uma espécie de inobservância às Regras de Discussão Crítica - regras que fazem referência a um comportamento, ou ação, pelo qual os interlocutores são responsáveis. Cada tipo de falácia pode ocorrer em um determinado estágio de discussão crítica, a qual corresponde a um modelo que apresenta estágios distintos, analiticamente, no processo de solucionar uma discussão, e cada violação às regras da discussão crítica pode tornar a resolução da diferença de opinião mais difícil ou mesmo impossível, configurando-se uma falácia. Tais violações são realizadas por meio de atos de fala dos tipos assertivo, comissivo, diretivo, declarativo ou declarativo de uso. A metodologia a ser utilizada constitui-se da observação das unidades de análise (os turnos de fala dos participantes), de modo a classificar a ocorrência das falácias. O corpus selecionado refere-se a debates políticos eleitorais exibidos pela mídia televisiva, no ano de 2008, referentes às eleições à prefeitura da cidade São Paulo-SP. / This paper deals with political debate, in order to analyze if the opinions are truly the aim of this kind of discourse and some of the strategic arguments, that can be understand as fallacies, would be find. At the Pragma-dialectical approach of argumentation (van Eemeren e Grootendorst: 1984, 1992, 2004) the concept of fallacies could be better understood as one impediment to the resolution of a disagreement. The theory proposes ten rules for the conduct of an ideal model of a critical discussion. A fallacy is a violation of one of the ten rules. Generically, such fallacies are moves which disrupt or derail the process of rationally resolving an expressed difference of opinion. A fallacy can happen in the various stages of a critical discussion by the performance of speech acts: comissives, directives, expressive and declaratives. The methodology is the observation of the speech acts of the participants on a debate in order to verify the fallacies that can occur. Political debates from 2008, for the mayor of Sao Paulo election is the corpus selected.

Educators and practicing professionals in many fields emphasize the importance of critical thinking for effective decision-making. However, critical thinking skills are not usually directly taught in traditional educational settings. A subset of these skills, identifying logical fallacies, could be amenable to direct instruction using procedures that establish conditional discriminations, such as equivalence-based instruction (EBI). EBI procedures have been shown to be effective and efficient when teaching a variety of skills, including the identification of logical fallacies, when compared with no-instruction and self-instruction control groups. The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of web-based EBI procedures to a more traditional lecture-based instruction format, with and without requiring participants to actively respond to the material, for teaching undergraduate students to identify logical fallacies. Participants were assigned to one of three groups: equivalence-based instruction, lecture-based instruction or lecture-based instruction with active responding. Using a pretest-train-posttest design, performance on multiple-choice tests that target relations among logical fallacy names, descriptions, and examples were compared. The results of this study suggest that EBI is an effective instruction method for teaching college students to identify logical fallacies. When compared to both lecture-based instruction teaching methods, EBI resulted in consistently higher posttest scores following instruction and more consistent acquisition of the nonprogrammed relations (i.e., BA, CA, CB, BC).

Tor Andræ’s I myrtenträdgården is the only comprehensive work on sufism written in Swedish language. The concept ”sufism” is interesting when it comes to conceptual shifts and according to Carl W. Ernst, ”sufism” is a westernised construction of an eastern phenomenon. This study examines Andræ's text in the light of Ernst's theory. The aim is to investigate if rhetoric with its theories on topos, fallacies and identification can help us gain insight into this construction and the discussion of sufism in general, and how conceptual shifts takes place in a specific material. The study tells us that Tor Andræ’s I Myrtenträdgården, despite his good intention, shows a hegemonic picture of a sufism with its roots in christianity, a picture that helps to maintain the confusion surrounding the concept. The study also shows that it is mainly through argumentation and identification that this construction takes place. Rhetorical criticism, with its theories, is therefore a fine instrument for highlighting this construction at work.

A total of 168 undergraduate students at Temple University provided a measure of their prior beliefs and measures of attitude strength on three topics and then attempted to identify and explain informal reasoning fallacies based on the same topics. Contrary to the hypothesized predictions, prior beliefs and measures of attitude strength did not have a significant effect on participants' ability to accept informal reasoning fallacies consistent with their beliefs based on that topic, although agreement with the topic demonstrated modest effects. Furthermore, this research demonstrated that participants have significant difficulty identifying and explaining informal logical fallacies. Ability to identify and explain one informal fallacy is not a significant predictor of the ability to identify and explain other fallacies. Also, ability to identify and explain one fallacy in a topic is a poor predictor of the ability to identify and explain that fallacy in another topic. This research indicates that formal fallacy syllogism scores were the best predictor of the ability to identify and explain informal logical fallacies, and that agreement with the topic and willingness to act on those beliefs demonstrated modest effects. Consistent with studies on dual-processing theory, in informal logic the individual is forced to examine the information presented in the statement and the structure of the statement and then relate it to their prior opinions and attitudes about the topic, and therefore, the acceptance of the fallacy is a matter of motivated reasoning bias or self-deception instead of an error in analytical reasoning. Informal reasoning fallacies represented an error in judgment, or a misunderstanding of the validity of an argument. Practical implications for school psychologists, limitations of this research, and directions for future research were discussed. / School Psychology

The research undertakes a critical study of informal fallacies in some socio-political and religious discourses in Ghana. It clearly and aptly demonstrates that the aforementioned discourses are mostly, if not, always laced with fallacies which obscure and distort clear and critical thinking. The study shows that language, which is the fundamental means by which to engage in socio-political discourse, can be viewed as a complicated tool which is open to misuse and abuse. It shows that language used in socio-political discourses is more often than not utilized poorly, and as such assertions and appeals can be confused with factual/logical inaccuracies. Statements can be formulated in ways that make their content dangerously vague, ambiguous or generally misleading. The research shows that although fallacies can be committed intentionally or unintentionally, in discourses in general, they are mostly, if not always, committed intentionally in socio-political discourse so as to achieve political gains and agenda. Another area of discourse that is tackled in this work where fallacies frequently occur is the religious sector. The study notes that matters of religion are mostly matters that are delicate to handle as these matters are mostly, again if not always, based on faith. It is shown herein that many a time, religious personalities use fallacious as means to drive their religious agenda across. The research then looks at what these aforementioned fallacies imply in relation to socio-political and religious discourses. It proceeds to discuss the positive implications of fallacies before it progresses to the negative implications of same. It then asks how a fallacy will be beneficial to a person and or how it will disadvantage the same person. If fallacies often occur in socio-political and religious discourses, then one must have the ability to detect these fallacies and try to avoid them. The work discusses how to detect fallacies and how to avoid them. It makes bold claims that if one has knowledge about fallacies then one will be able to avoid them. / Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology / Ph. D. (Philosophy)

Critical thinking is emphasized as a desirable and important ability across disciplines, occupations, governments, and cultures. Experts describe critical thinking as a collection of individually quantifiable skills that should be directly trained; however, existing interventions for improving critical thinking skills can be time consuming. Equivalence-based instruction reliably yields rapid and efficient acquisition of a variety of academic skills. The ability to identify logical fallacies was selected as a subset of critical thinking skills and compared across 30 college undergraduates who received either equivalence-based instruction, self-instruction, or no instruction in a pretest-train-posttest group design. Equivalence-based instruction resulted in greater mean score increases with shorter instructional duration than self-instruction and no instruction; however, mean session length and Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test scores did not differ between groups.

Language can create realities, and the totalitarian pigs in George Orwell’s Animal Farm tend to use language in order to control the oppressed animals’ minds and world view. Orwell’s dystopian fable Animal Farm repeatedly deals with manipulative language, and so an analysis of the animal characters’ language may help upper secondary students to understand themes such as the power of language and truth. Moreover, for students to understand the power of language and truth in Animal Farm more easily I, in this essay, argue that logic and epistemology might help. This logical and epistemological perspective can be seen as a philosophical perspective for English teachers and students when they discuss language and truth on the farm. Finally, this philosophical analysis of Animal Farm may also improve students’ logical reasoning skills and critical thinking.

Thesis (M.Ed. (Science Education)) -- University of Limpopo, 2016 / This study investigated Grade 11 learners’ misconceptions about force. An exploratory design was used with six schools. A purposive sample of 190 learners studying Physical Sciences was tested for common misconceptions using the Force Concept Inventory (FCI). Furthermore, the prevalence of the misconceptions was also determined. Focus group discussions were used to determine the origin of learners’ misconceptions. Descriptive analysis of the FCI revealed extensive misconceptions about Newtonian physics amongst Grade 11 learners with a prevalence range of 70% to 90%. The researcher surmised that the origins of these prevalent misconceptions are inherent of the sources of misconceptions that learners encounter in the formal physics classrooms: teachers and textbooks. Textbooks used by learners do not take into account possible misconceptions that learners might have. Thus, it might be difficult for teachers to identify possible misconceptions-prone topics based on their own background. The researcher recommends interactive teaching strategies.

<p>I denna kandidatuppsats undersöks narrativer och argumentation i Jan Björklunds pluggskola. Bakgrunden till uppsatsen är att undersöka hur politiker använder berättelsens övertygande kraft för att vinna röster, och huruvida en argumentation baserat på narrativer är hållbar. Materialet som ligger till grund för denna uppsats är insamlade debattartiklar och uttalanden där Jan Björklund presenterar sin skolpolitik. Teorierna som denna uppsats grundar sig på är den retoriska pedagogiken utifrån Quintilianus och Giambattista Vico, samt det sociokulturella perspektivet på pedagogik. Dessutom används psykologiteorier om narrativens funktion för människans förståelse. Som metod används Ernest G. Bormanns fantasy-themeanalys samt argumentationsanalysen utvecklad av Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst och Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. Resultaten som framkommit av analysen är att Björklund använder narrativen i argumentativt syfte vilket gör hans argumentation icke hållbar och fallasityngd.</p> / <p>This essay examines narratives and argumentation in Jan Björklunds pluggskolan. The background for this essay is to investigate how politicians use the narratives argumentative force to persuade and if an argument based on a narrative is durable. The material contains articles and statments by Jan Björklund concerning the swedish school system.The theories used in this essey are the rhetoric view on pedagogy, based on Quintilian and Giambattista Vico, and the sociocultural view on pedagogy. The essay also uses psychological theories on the narrative function of human understanding. The methods used in this essay is Bormanns Fantasy theme criticism and the argumentation analysis developed by Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. The results of this essay are that Jan Björklund uses the narrative as arguments, which leads to non-durable argumentation.</p>

I denna kandidatuppsats undersöks narrativer och argumentation i Jan Björklunds pluggskola. Bakgrunden till uppsatsen är att undersöka hur politiker använder berättelsens övertygande kraft för att vinna röster, och huruvida en argumentation baserat på narrativer är hållbar. Materialet som ligger till grund för denna uppsats är insamlade debattartiklar och uttalanden där Jan Björklund presenterar sin skolpolitik. Teorierna som denna uppsats grundar sig på är den retoriska pedagogiken utifrån Quintilianus och Giambattista Vico, samt det sociokulturella perspektivet på pedagogik. Dessutom används psykologiteorier om narrativens funktion för människans förståelse. Som metod används Ernest G. Bormanns fantasy-themeanalys samt argumentationsanalysen utvecklad av Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst och Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. Resultaten som framkommit av analysen är att Björklund använder narrativen i argumentativt syfte vilket gör hans argumentation icke hållbar och fallasityngd. / This essay examines narratives and argumentation in Jan Björklunds pluggskolan. The background for this essay is to investigate how politicians use the narratives argumentative force to persuade and if an argument based on a narrative is durable. The material contains articles and statments by Jan Björklund concerning the swedish school system.The theories used in this essey are the rhetoric view on pedagogy, based on Quintilian and Giambattista Vico, and the sociocultural view on pedagogy. The essay also uses psychological theories on the narrative function of human understanding. The methods used in this essay is Bormanns Fantasy theme criticism and the argumentation analysis developed by Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. The results of this essay are that Jan Björklund uses the narrative as arguments, which leads to non-durable argumentation.