Math Tags
Math Tags > Tag based links for Argument
The following links have been tagged argument by users just like you, because these resources are off-site we cannot guarantee the accuracy or quality of any third-party information.
- The Uses of
Argument: (07 July
2003)This
reissue of the
modern classic
on the study
of
argumentation
features a new
Introduction
by the author.
A central
theme
throughout the
impressive
series of
philosophical
books and
articles
Stephen
Toulmin has
published
since 1948 is
the way in
which
assertions and
opinions
concerning all
sorts of
topics,
brought up in
everyday life
or in academic
research, can
be rationally
justified. Is
there one
universal
system of
norms, by
which all
sorts of
arguments in
all sorts of
fields must be
judged, or
must each sort
of argument be
judged
according to
its own norms?
In The Uses of
Argument
(1958) Toulmin
sets out his
views on these
questions for
the first
time. In spite
of initial
criticisms
from logicians
and fellow
philosophers,
The Uses of
Argument has
been an
enduring
source of
inspiration
and discussion
to students of
argumentation
from all kinds
of
disciplinary
background for
more than
forty years.
Source: (07 July 2003) - Logical models
of argument: ACM Comput.
Surv., Vol.
32, No. 4.
(December
2000), pp.
337-383.
Source: ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 32, No. 4. (December 2000), pp. 337-383. - Making Tree
Kernels
Practical for
Natural
Language
Learning: (2006)In
recent years
tree kernels
have been
proposed for
the automatic
learning of
natural
language
applications.
Unfortunately,
they show (a)
an inherent
super linear
complexity and
(b) a lower
accuracy than
traditional
attribute/valu
e methods.
Source: (2006) - Substance and
structure in
assessment
arguments: Law Probablity
and Risk, Vol.
2, No. 4. (1
December
2003), pp.
237-258.Educat
ional
assessment is
reasoning from
observations
of what
students do or
make in a
handful of
particular
circumstances,
to what they
know or can do
more broadly.
Practice has
changed a
great deal
over the past
century, in
response to
evolving
conceptions of
knowledge and
its
acquisition,
views of
schooling and
its purposes,
and
technologies
for gathering
and evaluating
response data.
Conceptions of
what
constitutes
assessment
data, how it
should be
interpreted,
and what kind
of inferences
are to be
drawn can
differ
radically
under
different
psychological
perspectives.
We see greater
continuity,
however, when
we distinguish
the structure
of assessment
arguments from
their
substance.
Developments
here have been
more in the
nature of
extensions,
elaborations,
and
refinements,
as they have
been prompted
by changes in
culture and
substance.
10.1093/lpr/2.
4.237
Source: Law Probablity and Risk, Vol. 2, No. 4. (1 December 2003), pp. 237-258. - Deliberate
Conflict:
Argument,
Political
Theory, and
Composition
Classes: (09 June
2004)In
Deliberate
Conflict:
Argument,
Political
Theory, and
Composition
Classes,
Patricia
Roberts-Miller
argues that
much current
discourse
about argument
pedagogy is
hampered by
fundamental
unspoken
disagreements
over what
democratic
public
discourse
should look
like. The
book's pivotal
question is:
In what kind
of public
discourse do
we want our
students to
engage? To
answer this,
the text
provides a
taxonomy,
discussion,
and evaluation
of political
theories
underpinning
democratic
discourse,
highlighting
the
relationship
between
various models
of the public
sphere and
rhetorical
theory.
Roberts-Miller
seeks to
diffuse
student
antagonism
toward
argumentation
by increasing
instructors'
awareness of
different
models of
democracy in
argument
pedagogy. She
provides a
range of
theories,
discussing the
major features
and rhetorical
applicability
of the
liberal, the
interest-based
, the
communitarian,
and the
deliberative
models of the
public domain.
Deliberate
Conflict
cogently
advocates
reintegrating
instruction in
argumentation
into the
composition
curriculum. By
linking
effective
argumentation
in the public
sphere with
the ability to
affect social
change,
Roberts-Miller
pushes
compositionist
s beyond a
simplistic
Aristotelian
conception of
how
argumentation
works and
offers a means
by which to
prepare
students for
active
participation
in public
discourse.
Source: (09 June 2004) - Rhetorical
Refusals:
Defying
Audiences'
Expectations: (03 December
2007)
Source: (03 December 2007) - Pros and Cons
of Adaptive
Hypermedia in
Web-Based
Education: CyberPsycholog
y & Behavior,
Vol. 3, No. 1.
(2000), pp.
71-77.Hypertex
t and
hypermedia
applications
allow users to
navigate
through large
sets of
information in
many different
ways. It is
impossible for
an author to
foresee all
possible paths
a user may
follow.
Adaptive
hypermedia is
a fairly new
research field
on the
crossroad of
hypertext (or
hypermedia)
and user
modeling. Its
goal is to
improve
usability of
hypermedia
through the
automatic
adaptation of
hypermedia
applications
to individual
users.
Adaptive
hypermedia
systems (AHS)
offer methods
and techniques
for adapting
the content of
information
pages and the
links between
pages. A
number of
experiments
have been
conducted to
demonstrate
the benefits
of adaptive
hypermedia,
mostly of
adaptation of
link
structures. In
this article
we argue that
the benefits
of using an
AHS are a
result of
careful
authoring,
more than of
the adaptive
techniques
themselves.
Source: CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 3, No. 1. (2000), pp. 71-77. - Godelian
ontological
arguments: Analysis, Vol.
56, No. 4.
(1996), pp.
226-230.
Source: Analysis, Vol. 56, No. 4. (1996), pp. 226-230. - Commentary on
the Acheson
report.: Health
economics,
Vol. 8, No. 4.
(June 1999),
pp. 297-299.
Source: Health economics, Vol. 8, No. 4. (June 1999), pp. 297-299. - On
Argumentation
Schemes and
the Natural
Classification
of Arguments: Argumentation,
Vol. 18, No.
2. (2004), pp.
239-259.We
develop
conceptions of
arguments and
of argument
types that
will, by
serving as the
basis for
developing a
natural
classification
of arguments,
benefit work
in artificial
intelligence.
Focusing only
on arguments
construed as
the semantic
entities that
are the
outcome of
processes of
reasoning, we
outline and
clarify our
view that an
argument is a
proposition
that
represents a
fact as both
conveying some
other fact and
as doing so
wholly.
Further, we
outline our
view that,
with respect
to arguments
that are
propositions,
(roughly) two
arguments are
of the same
type if and
only if they
represent the
same relation
of conveyance
and do so in
the same way.
We then argue
for our
conceptions of
arguments and
argument
types, and
compare them
to alternative
positions. We
also
illustrate the
need for, and
some of the
strengths of,
our approach
to classifying
arguments
through an
examination of
aspects of two
prominent and
recent
attempts to
classify
arguments
using
argumentation
schemes,
namely those
of M.
Kienpointner
and D. Walton.
Finally, we
clarify how
our conception
of arguments
and of
argument types
can assist in
developing an
exhaustive
classification
of arguments.
Source: Argumentation, Vol. 18, No. 2. (2004), pp. 239-259.
If you would like to find additional social bookmark based links on the topic of argument we recommend the Open Tag Directory > Argument. If you would like to find related tags we recommend Tag Patterns > Argument.
