missing the point or missing the norms?

8/14/2019 Missing the Point or Missing the Norms?

1/33

Missing the point or missing the norms?Epistemological norms as predictors of students

ability to identify fallacious arguments

M. Weinstock, Y. Neuman, I. Tabak

Contemporary Educational Psychology (2004)

Presented by:

Jeremy Wang

EPSY 81141 March 2009


2/33

Outline

Why argumentation?

Fallacies: Formal and Informal

Episte-WHAT????

Methods: Participants and Materials Results

Discussion Questions


3/33

Outline

Why argumentation?


Episte-WHAT????




4/33

Why argumentation?

ClimateGate


5/33

Why argumentation?

Same-Sex Marriage


6/33

Why argumentation?

Crucial for

participation in democratic society

championing ones ideas

rebut opposition withstanding rhetorical tactics


7/33

Outline

Why argumentation?


Episte-WHAT????




8/33

Fallacies: Formal ArgumentsForm:

If A, then B

B

Therefore, A

Example:

If the Twins signed Joe Mauer, then I will be

happy. I am happy.

Therefore, the Twins signed Joe Mauer.


9/33

Fallacies: Formal ArgumentsBase Rate Fallacy (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974)

1% of women at age forty who participate inroutine screening have breast cancer. 80% ofwomen with breast cancer will get positive

mammographies. 9.6% of women without breastcancer will also get positive mammographies. Awoman in this age group had a positivemammography in a routine screening. What isthe probability that she actually has breastcancer?


10/33

Fallacies: Informal Arguments

Unlike formal arguments, they cannot be

detected by examining the form or thestructure of the argument

Need to detect by

Context (the goal and rules applied)

Content (meaning of words, vagueness)

Informal argument fallacies have implicationsfor epistemological understandings


11/33

Outline

Why argumentation?


Episte-WHAT????


Discussion

Questions


12/33

Episte-WHAT???

Epistemology is the study of knowledge and

justified belief (Stanford EoP) What are the necessary and sufficient conditions

of knowledge?

What are its sources?

What makes justified beliefs justified?

Example: How do you know the Eiffel Towerexists?


13/33

Episte-WHAT???

4 basic dimensions of nature of knowledge

(Hofer, 2001):1. Certainty

2. Simplicity

3. Justification4. Source

Theory-in-action approach:

your epistemological beliefs are invoked inreal-world cognitive activities


14/33

Norms of Argumentation

Two-sided nature of argumentation

Helpful in generating alternative arguments

Need to use evidence and coordinate it with

the best explanation Involved evaluating evidence and connecting it to

explanations with sound logic


15/33

Assumptions

A sound reasoner should be able to claim that

certain arguments are illegitimate byrecognizing violations of argumentation norms

(rather than the content)

Therefore, one should be able to distinguish a

critical discussion from a quarrel or debate


16/33

Outline

Why argumentation?


Episte-WHAT????


Discussion

Questions


17/33

Method: Participants

281 students in Israel

57 8th graders

65 9th graders

60 10th graders

48 11th graders

51 12th graders


18/33

Method: Materials Fallacy identification task

Differed on two aspects Context (scientific vs. school debate)

Type of fallacy (3 types)

Students asked 3 questions Do you think there is a problem with the argument?

(yes/no)

If you think there is a problem, what is it? (open

ended) What is the main reason for the debate? (forced

choice)


19/33

Method: Materials

Ad populum (appeal to popularity)


20/33

Methods: Materials

Ad hominem (attack on person)


21/33

Methods: Materials

Ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance)


22/33

Methods: Materials

Argumentation Norms Task


23/33

Outline

Why argumentation?


Episte-WHAT????

Methods: Participants and Materials

Results

Discussion

Questions


24/33

Results

>

Appears that students can identify fallacies (may be an

artifact of the task), but are not good at explaining

Only used explanation scores in further analysis


25/33

Results

Students are generally familiar with these different types

of fallacies more so for Ad hominem than for the others

I dont know students were not included in furtheranalysis


26/33

Results

According to Mann-Whitney U tests, all of these differences

were significant Still, rather low correlation between knowing a norm and

being able to explain what was wrong with the argument

Interaction with content???

>


27/33

Outline

Why argumentation?


Episte-WHAT????

Methods: Participants and Materials

Results

Discussion

Questions


28/33

Discussion

Goal of study:

Examine whether a familiarity withargumentation norms explains students

ability to identify informal reasoning fallacies

Results support this hypothesis


29/33

DiscussionDo students really recognize fallacies?

Students can recognize, but they dontnecessarily have explicit rules or language to

attach to these fallacies

Reflects underlying epistemological

understandings rather than learned rules,

skills or rhetorical moves


30/33

DiscussionThe relationship between epistemological

understanding and argumentation skill iscomplicated.

Just because students have epistemological

awareness does not automatically mean they

can apply argumentation skills

necessary but not sufficient


31/33

Outline Why argumentation?


Episte-WHAT????


Discussion

Questions


32/33

QuestionsDiscussion:

Which comes first knowledge of norms or recognition offlawed arguments? (important to know from educationalstandpoint)

Tasks:

Greater number of tasks? (similarity GRE writing items???)

Methods:

Other statistical tests? (might have given them moreinteresting information)

What about age-level of students? What about interactions between content and

argumentation skill?


33/33

END

missing the point or missing the norms?

Documents