Pragma-Dialectical Analysis and Evaluation of Problem-Solving Discussion

In this article, after arguing that present approaches to improving problem-solving discussions for various reasons are not satisfactory, I turn to the pragma-dialectic approach to argumentative discourse to derive a normative framework that can serve as a point of departure to enhance the quality of problem-solving discussions. I then show how this approach can be used as analytical and evaluative instrument that can help the analyst to establish whether participants in actual practice act in a fashion that is in accord with the norms posited. Two real-life problem-solving discussions provide the material for this demonstration.     

Toward an Alliance Between the Issue-Processing Approach and Pragma-Dialectical Analysis

On the approach to discussions of policy choices that treats such discussions as instances of issue-processing, the joint use of the logic of questions and the logic of rules gives precise formulation to two sorts of issues. To one sort of issue belong issue-circumscribing questions; to another sort, issues-simplicter, which consist of disjunctions of policy proposals – so many proposed social rules – that are answers, in the case of each disjunction, to a given issue-circumscribing question. Work in pragma-dialectics can take over the issue-processing approach; and by doing so add to the pragma-dialectical repertory further dimensions in the analysis of issues and in protocol-narratives of discussion. The analysis and narratives would now include accounts of how issue-circumscribing questions generate initial standpoints and how discussions sometimes end with compromises between standpoints. Further research questions follow about transformations of issues and the comparison of successive rounds of discussion. A narrative of one period of discussion during `the War on Drugs' in the United States illustrates these points.     

On How to Get Beyond the Opening Stage

Any well-structured argumentative exchange must be preceded by some preparatory stages. In the pragma-dialectical four-stage model of critical discussion, the clarification of issues and positions is relegated to the confrontation stage and the other preparatory matters are dealt within the opening stage. In the opening stage, the parties involved come to agree to discuss their differences and to do so by an argumentative exchange rather than by, say, a sequence of bids and offers. They should also come to agree on the rules of dialogue, on roles, on logical principles, on types of argument, and on the propositions that can be used as basic premises. All in all, a lot of work needs to be done before the first topical argument can be put forward. Especially the opening stage seems prone to further disagreements and protracted discussions, e.g., about the admissibility of particular kinds of argument or particular basic premises. There is also the problem that a successful opening stage threatens to settle matters beforehand and thus put the argumentation stage out of business. The paper suggests some measures that could alleviate the workload of the opening stage, without making the argumentation stage otiose.     

The Logic of Critique

This paper attempts to define the concept of critique, explain its function␣and properties and distinguish it from the close concept of evaluation. It is argued that, beyond the argument, a critique is concerned with the position of the proponent relatively to the reality the argument is about. Moreover, a critique is itself an argument in which assumptions regarding the position of the proponent are justified for a given audience on the basis of the proponent’s argumentative background within a specific domain.     

E Contrario Reasoning: The Dilemma of the Silent Legislator

Summary This contribution offers an evaluation of e contrario reasoning in which the interpretation of a legal rule is based on the context of the law system (contextual e contrario reasoning). A model is presented which will show all the explicit and implicit elements of the argument at work and will also point out how these distinct parts are interrelated. By questioning the content and justificatory power of these elements, the weak spots in the argument can be laid bare. It will be argued that e contrario reasoning inevitably requires a dubious argumentative step, which renders the argument intrinsically weak. The model is applied to a European lawsuit on French cheese.     

A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context

This paper answers the question how pragmatic argumentation which occurs in a legal context, can be analyzed and evaluated adequately. First, the author surveys various ideas taken from argumentation theory and legal theory on the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation. Then, on the basis of these ideas, she develops a pragma-dialectical instrument for analyzing and evaluating pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. Finally she demonstrates how this instrument can be used by giving an exemplary analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation in a decision of the Dutch Supreme Court.     

Speech act conditions as tools for reconstructing argumentative discourse

According to the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation, for analysing argumentative discourse, a normative reconstruction is required which encompasses four kinds of transformations. It is explained in this paper how speech act conditions can play a part in carrying out such a reconstruction. It is argued that integrating Searlean insights concerning speech acts with Gricean insights concerning conversational maxims can provide us with the necessary tools. For this, the standard theory of speech acts has to be amended in several respects and the conversational maxims have to be translated into speech act conditions. Making use of the rules for communication thus arrived at, and starting from the distribution of speech acts in a critical discussion as specified in the pragma-dialectical model, it is then demonstrated how indirect speech acts are to be transformed when reconstructing argumentative discourse.     

The Revelation Argument. A 'Communicational Fallacy'

In this paper it is argued that much can be gained for the analysis and evaluation of arguing when fallacies are not, or not only, conceived of as flawed premise–conclusion complexes but rather as argumentative moves which distort harmfully an interaction aiming at resolving communication problems argumentatively. Starting from Normative Pragmatics and the pragma-dialectical concept of fallacy, a case study is presented to illustrate a fallacy which is termed the 'revelation argument' because it is characterized by an interactor's revealing her thoughts and/or emotions to the addressees and claiming that these would have justificatory or refutatory potential with respect to the problem discussed. Although the revelation argument may not be a paradigm case of resolution- hindering moves, it is an extreme case of flawed reasoning that illustrates plainly the advantages of a communicational perspective on arguing and fallacies.     

The Diagnostic Power of the Stages of Critical Discussion in the Analysis and Evaluation of Problem-Solving Discussions

In this article, the pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion is demonstrated to provide a useful instrument for discovering causes of an unsatisfactory development of problem-solving discussions. First a sketch is given of the development of a problem-solving discussion which, in the opinion of the participants themselves, developed in an unsatisfactory fashion. Then it is argued that this development can be traced back to flaws in the execution of the stages of a critical discussion.     

公共卫生人才调查及培养的思考

对江苏省部分市、区、县级疾病预防控制中心和卫生监督所的公共卫生队伍现状、人才需求进行了调查分析,为我国公共卫生教育提供了科学的依据。认为江苏省公共卫生系统现有人员素质有待进一步提高,医学高等院校应该加强公共卫生人才的培养。     

Developing a Validity Argument Through Abductive Reasoning with an Empirical Demonstration of the Latent Class Analysis

This article proposes and demonstrates a methodology for test score validation through abductive reasoning. It describes how abductive reasoning can be utilized in support of the claims made about test score validity. This methodology is demonstrated with a real data example of the Canadian English Language Proficiency Index Program (CELPIP)-General test—a program assessing functional English language ability in the community and workplace. Abductive reasoning seeks the enabling conditions through which a claim about a person's ability makes sense. For example, it makes sense that a person has strong functional language proficiency if he or she has been regularly using English to write emails and meet with colleagues at work. A valid test score should be affected by the extent of a person's engagement with such enabling conditions. Empirical evidence that warrants such an abductively reasoned claim is illustrated through a latent class analysis within a structural equation model. Evidence is examined to investigate whether certain classes of test takers who have been differentially engaging in the enabling conditions do, in fact, predict a person's CELPIP-General performance. The steps of the methodology are summarized in the closing section.     

The Rational Reconstruction of Argumentation Referring to Consequences and Purposes in the Application of Legal Rules: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective

In this paper, the author develops an instrument for the rational reconstruction of argumentation in which a judicial decision is justified by referring to the consequences in relation to the purpose of the rule. The instrument is developed by integrating insights from legal theory and legal philosophy about the function and use of arguments from consequences in relation to the purpose of a rule into a pragma-dialectical framework. Then, by applying the instrument to the analysis of examples from legal practice, it is demonstrated that the instrument can offer a heuristic and critical tool for the analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation that can ‘bridge’ the gap between more abstract discussions of forms of legal argumentation on the one hand, and legal arguments as they occur in actual legal practice on the other hand.     

英语语法规则获得与迁移的智力技能研究

选取451名高中生为被试,以强调句型语法为研究内容,采取教师教学、产生式规则和专家思维编制的实验材料,探讨了英语语法规则获得早、中期阶段促进规则获得的手段。在前面实验的基础上,选取298名高中生,以定语从句为研究内容,运用产生式规则、专家思维和练习编制的不同学习材料,采取随机区组设计,探讨了英语语法规则获得后期阶段的智力技能研究。通过研究得到如下结论：在语法规则获得的早中期阶段,产生式样例有助于学生智力技能的获得,同时也有助于所获得技能的迁移;在智力技能获得的后期阶段,专家样例有利于学生形成专家头脑中的图式,有助于学生实现有关智力技能的自动化。     

铁过度负荷与疾病

铁是机体微量元素中含量最多的一种,是血红蛋白、肌红蛋白、细胞色素系统、呼吸链的主要复合物、过氧物酶和过氧化氢酶等的重要组成部分,广泛参与机体生理功能和生化反应,缺铁可导致贫血等疾病.体内铁过多,称为铁过度负荷.随着医疗条件改善、生活水平提高,源于生理性因素、病理性因素和外源性铁剂应用(治疗性应用、预防性应用),铁过度负荷相关疾病日益增多.铁过度负荷可对内分泌代谢、心血管、神经系统、肾脏、肝脏等系统器官产生损害,导致多种疾病或使疾病加重.目前铁过度负荷相关疾病的治疗措施主要有放血疗法和药物治疗.放血疗法,只可作于短期治疗.去铁胺作为目前较为有效的去铁剂,由于价格昂贵,不能广泛应用于临床.铁过度负荷对人体的影响和相关疾病尚未外起医学界的重视.深入研究以铁过度负荷为主要和次要病因相关疾病,探索正确补铁措施,是预防铁过度负荷相关疾病、增进人体健康的重要措施,也是临床面临床的新课题.     

Empirical research on the identification of singular,multiple and subordinate argumentation

To examine to what degree argumentation skills are mastered by pupils who attend the vocational, general and academic streams in Dutch secondary education various subtests were constructed. The theoretical study of argumentation as exposed by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst was the basis for this test construction. In this article tests for the identification of singular, multiple and subordinate argumentation are described. Also an account is given of a pretest of these three subtests.     

Spinoza's Concept of Substance and Attribute: A Reading of the Short Treatise

ABSTRACT

In the recent secondary literature on Ockham’s philosophy of mind, it has been debated whether Ockham proposed an externalist or an internalist view of the intentional contents of intuitive cognitions. It has also been debated whether Ockham only attributes intentional content to intuitive cognitions, or rather two different properties, i.e. a likeness and an intentional content. Intuitive cognitions can be roughly understood as perceptions. In this article I propose a different perspective for analysing both debates, that is, the perspective that concerns Ockham’s theory of reflexivity. Ockham defended the idea that one can reflexively cognize two different features of intuitive cognitions; namely, their similarity or likeness, and their intentional content. Ockham proposed different degrees and modes of reflexive cognition regarding these features.     

A processing model for the analysis of one-way arguments in discourse

This paper describes a computational model for analyzing arguments in discourse. In particular, the model describes processes necessary for interpreting one uninterrupted argument from a speaker. The resulting output is a representation for the underlying claim and evidence relations between propositions of the argument. For our processing model we present: (i) a characterization of coherent orderings of propositions, used to limit search for interpretation of each new proposition (ii) a working definition of the evidence relation, used to recognize connections between propositions (iii) a theory of the function and use of clue words — special words and phrases indicating the structure of the argument — then used in the analysis to control search for interpretation and verification of evidence relations.     

A Comparison of the Original and Revised Stanford-Binet Scales

Empirical evidence has abundantly demonstrated that people report an intermediate level of tension for triadic interpersonal relations of the classical Heiderian P-O-X type, when the P/O link is negative. Low tension is found in balanced triads and high tension in imbalanced ones when the P/O bond is positive. This paper postulates that the opposing forces of balance and of agreement found in all four P-O-X triads in which the P/O bond is negative, in addition to Newcomb's lack of engagement hypothesis, may also account for the intermediate level of tension found in practically all experiments in this area. Subjects were grouped as Hi and Lo Conformists according to the C Scale of the Comrey Personality Scales, and later asked to rate hypothetical triads with a negative P/O bond. The results confirmed the hypotheses that Hi Conformists, who supposedly value agreement with others more than Lo Conformists (or are less bothered by disagreement than the latter), report significantly less tension and less willingness to change P-O-X triads with agreement than those with disagreement, when such triads have a negative P/O bond.