Arguments

You are invited to visit the website on the Periodic Table of Arguments at www.periodic-table-of-arguments.org. The website contains a description of the theoretical framework of the table, information on the types of arguments within the four different quadrants, analyses of concrete examples, and descriptions of related research projects.

Problem-based learning (PBL) is an instructional approach in which students in small groups engage in an authentic, ill-structured problem, and must (1) define, generate and pursue learning issues to understand the problem, (2) develop a possible solution, (3) provide evidence to support their solution, and (4) present their solution and the evidence that supports it (Barrows, How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. Springer Publishing, New York, 1985). However, research has shown that novice problem-solvers and learners without deep content knowledge have difficulty developing strong evidence-based arguments (Krajcik et al., J Learn Sci 7:313–350, 1998a; Reiser, J Lear Sci 13(3):273–304, 2004). In this paper, we discuss the components of (e.g., claims and evidence) and processes of making (e.g., define problem and make claim) evidence-based arguments. Furthermore, we review various scaffolding models designed to help students perform various tasks associated with creating evidence-based arguments (e.g., link claims to evidence) and present guidelines for the development of computer-based scaffolds to help middle school students build evidence-based arguments.

Vous devez partir du principe, par honnêteté intellectuelle et fidélité à la lettre ainsi qu'à l'esprit d'un texte philosophique, qu'un auteur (ou vous tentant d'expliquer son écrit) a recours aux arguments cités ci-dessous en règle générale. Pour faciliter votre approche, les exemples donnés sont tirés de la publicité ou d'argumentaires commerciaux qui ne font pas, quant à eux, toujours appel à notre raison mais plutôt nos sentiments. • L'argument par l'exemple : F 0 E 0 Il fait appel à un simple exemple ou à une anecdote soit par la cause, soit par les conséquences. Exemple : Fumer est réellement dangereux : mon oncle, qui fumait beaucoup, est mort l'an dernier d'un cancer des poumons. (il est factuel : on part de l'expérience singulière pour en tirer des conclusions générales, voire universellement valables.) Argument par la cause : Il s'appuie sur la ou les causes d'un phénomène. Parmi les causes possibles,celui qui argumente sélectionne celles qui s'accordent avec sa thèse. Argument par la conséquence : Il s'appuie sur les effets d'un phénomène pour en montrer les avantages ou les inconvénients. Il peut aussi partir d'une hypothèse et en envisager les conséquences pour en montrer l'absurdité. L'auteur envisage un fait et ses conséquences : Ce serait une grande absurdité de mettre tout à coup les hommes opulents dans la nécessité de diminuer leur luxe ; ce serait fermer les canaux. Les richesses peuvent revenir du riche au pauvre ; et vous réduiriez au désespoir une multitude innombrable de citoyens que le luxe fait vivre. Les arguments par la cause et par la conséquence sont aussi utilisés dans d'autres cas que les arguments par l'exemple. Cependant, il arrive souvent que ces deux types partent de l'exemple ou y conduisent. • L'argument par l'analogie ou la comparaison : F 0 E 0 Il fait appel à la ressemblance entre le thème et l'élément choisi dans la comparaison pour en induire les mêmes conséquences. La question à se poser est : quelles limites pour ces comparaisons ? Où s'arrête la ressemblance?) Exemple : Pour moi, conduire aussi vite en ville, c'est comme tirer à la mitraillette dans la foule en fermant les yeux. (Pensez aux limites de ce type de raisonnement) • L'argument d'autorité : F 0 E 0 Il fait appel à un expert, à une personne dont la compétence est reconnue, à une citation, à des statistiques. Il invoque souvent une chose extérieure à l'argumentation, son autorité lui vient de l'extérieur, donc pas du déroulement même de l'argumentation elle-même. (Problèmes) Exemple : Les scientifiques sont tous d'accord pour incriminer certains gaz dans le problème de la couche d'ozone. Idée du « scientifiquement prouvé ». • L'argument ad populum ou argument de la norme : F 0 E 0 Il affirme qu'une chose peut être bonne puisque tout le monde le fait. Il fait souvent passer un constat (descriptif) pour ce qui devrait être (normatif). Être et devoir être. Exemple : Tout le monde s'habille comme ça maintenant ! • L'argument par les valeurs : F 0 E 0 Il se réfère à une valeur censée être partagée par le lecteur. (il appelle souvent la question de la définition de cette valeur, moins évidente que l'argumentation ne nous le présente) Exemple : La vie est un plaisir, et doit le rester. METHODOLOGIE TES/TS PHILOSOPHIE Mr. ROSAY

I belong to a group of academics offering our work for FREE downlaod as commercial publishers charge too much for books. https://www.academia.edu/31099506/_Meta-philosophy_Where_to_begin_Philosophy

If you wish to think/write about many dimensional things like the‭ ‘‬world‭’‬,‭ ‬persons,‭ ‬consciousness,‭ ‬human thinking etc,‭ ‬you should at least think multi-dimensional and many levelled.
Questioning the purpose,‭ ‬the subject-matter and the methodology,‭ ‬methods of the discipline. I have already dealt in detail about the disappearance of different subject from the philosophical discourse with the differentiation of other disciplines, as well as the involvement in philosophy in inter-disciplinary areas such as cognitive sciences, the creation of experimental philosophy and the philosophies of other discourses, eg art, religion, science, mathematics, sport and every subject possible. Philosophy has/is often interpreted as consisting of logic, which in has its own discourse, while other aspects or forms of logic really form part of mathematics. The doing of philosophy as the doing of (usually informal) logic is in some way related to this belief. As far as the method of philosophy goes, it is always seen as employing arguments, argumentation and reasoning. But all kinds of writing and talking employ arguments, argumentation, reasoning and informal logic – not just philosophy. I conclude with a discussion from theoretical physics (in the past associated with the philosophical discourse) that provides us with ontologies as philosophy used to do. Against that background I present articles on the multiverse, more conventional articles on our universe, our world, our physical reality and the origins of life. I think these are some of the many things that it is necessary that philosophy should take note of and consequently question itself, its aims, objectives, subject-matter and methodologies. We might then have something different than one-levelled and one-dimensional thinking and more many layered and levelled and multi-dimensional thinking. Is this not how our consciousness functions? On many levels, layers and dimensions simultaneously? So should this not be the manner in which we conceive of ‘it’, its nature and functioning? We, philosophy, should at least be thinking ( instead of individual concepts, or statements, linear thinking - we should simultaneously think on many layers, on many levels and in several dimensions) in terms of 3D, for example 3D scatter plots .By this I mean the many different aspects of the person (mentally and physically, socially, culturally, as well as our environment, planetary and universe context should be included in every concept we employ; each concept should therefore be at least like a 3D scatter plot image, including all these levels and information)

لَطالَما يَتِم الاعتداد بالنُّقولات الشَفَهِيَّة الجَمْعِيَّة الكُوَيْتِيّة في كِتابَة تاريخ بَلدَة الكويت الحَديث عَبْرَ الباحِثون المُعاصِرون وأوائِل المُؤَرِّخون؛ ذلك لاتّساع دائِرَة أحداثها التّاريخِيَّة المُغطّاة التي قُلّما يكون لها ذات التّفاصيل ضِمنَ مَنْظومَة الوَثائِق. رُغْمَ مُعاناة تِلكَ الرِّوايات مِن اضطّراب في المَوْثوقِيَّة عُمومًا، بَيْدَ أنّها استطاعَت تَقَلُّد مَنزِلَة مُهِمَّة في التَّدوين عَن تاريخ البَلدَة الحَديث بسبب مَضامينها المُتَفَرِّدة بها غالبًا. على إثرِه، تَبْزُغ أهمِّيَّة المُقابَلات الحِوارِيَّة للبَرنامَج التِلفِزيوني "صَفَحات مِن تاريخ الكُوَيْت" عِند مُقارَنَتِها مع المُدَوَّنات الكُوَيْتِيَّة والعَرَبِيَّة المُبَكِّرَة، المُعْتَمِدَة جَميعًا على بُنْيَة الرِّوايَة الشَّفَهِيَّة الجَمْعِيَّة لأهالي البَلدَة مَصْدَرًا جَوْهَرِيًّا لِمَعْرِفَة ماضي البَلدَة بالنِّسْبَةِ إليها. بُناءً عليه، تم اختيار مُقابَلة أحمد يعقوب المَحْميد نَموذجًا مِن مُقابَلات البرنامج لِمُقارَبَة تَصَوُّرات تاريخِيَّة تَتَعَلَّق بإحدى أَعْقَد إشكالات تاريخ البَلدَة الحَديث وأكثرها حَيَوِيَّةً بالتَّداوِل العِلْمي مُؤَخَّرًا؛ أَيْ إشكالِيَّة مَفْهوم "تأسيس الكُوَيْت". انْحَصَرَت أهم أسئِلَة الدِّراسَة ضِمنَ إطار الاسْتِفْهام عن أهمِيَّة المَحْميد اجتماعِيًّا ومَعْرِفَةً بالمَأثور الشَّفَهي الجَمْعي، عن مدى اتّساق ذاكِرَتِه الرِّوائِيَّة الجَمْعِيَّة مع إدلاء رِوايات أهالي البَلدَة المُؤَرَّخَة تَقْييدًا في غُضون (1824-1966م)، وعن ماهِيَّة إدراك مَعْرفي مُمْكِن التَّشَكُّل كأقرب مَنْظور تاريخي يَعْكِس مَعْنى الإشكالِيَّة ويَفُكّ اشتباكاتِها المُخْتَلِفَة بين أبرز المَصادِر الرِّوائِيَّة والوَثائِقِيَّة. تَمَّت مُقارَبَة الإشكالِيَّة عَبْرَ نَهْجَيْ الوَصْف والتَّحليل المُقارِن، بِجانِب تَطْبيق مُراجَعَة نَقْدِيَّة لِكَمٍ مِن مَراجِع التّاريخ المُعْتَمِدَة على مَصادِر الدِّراسَة. بالخاتِمَة، تَوَصَّلَت الدِّراسَة لِتَوْصِيَة ومَجْموعَة استنتاجات؛ مِن النَّتائِج تَفْكيك مَقْصَد "تأسيس الكُوَيْت" وِفْقًا لِلمَنْظور الرِّوائي الجَمْعي الصِّرْف، زمن استقرار جَماعَة العُتوب على أرض بَلدَة الكُوَيْت، بعض جَوانِب سور البَلدَة الأوّل، زَمَن نَشْأَة كوت إمارَة بَنو خالد على أرض الأخيرَة، وعِلاقة بَنو خالد مع سُلْطَة العُتوب المُبَكِّرَة بالنِّصْف الأَوّل لِلقَرن الثّامِن عَشَر الميلادي. كَلِمات مِفتاحِيَّة: الكويت، تاريخ، رواية، إشكالية، تأسيس، العتوب، المحميد، الشملان.

An exploration of  philosophy, its subject-matter (and development of new objects of study and investigation or philosophizing, for example experimental ‘philosophy’, inter-disciplinary work such as in the discourse of cognitive research and philosophy of everything, i e the arts, sport, religion, sex, love, politics, etc), its methods and confines, both internal and external linits, eg cognitive biases, fallacies, -isms, one-dimensionality, uni-levelled, etc.

Expert consensus is crucial for those who are not relevant experts in the field in which they are studying. However, for those who are a relevant expert in the field of a philosophic subject, there is a debate that asks if a minority view can ever be considered rational. Bryan Frances argues that if one is a relevant expert in a field, and is in the minority, their views must be irrational. In this essay I will be arguing that Frances' argument fails in terms of the 'explanation' way, leading to leery acceptance of the 'no-process' way. I argue that relevant expert consensus does not matter; it is evaluating the argument that one makes. First, I discuss the debate on whether a relevant expert can disregard consensus and what a relevant expert is. Secondly, I deconstruct Frances' view charitably. Third, I analyze the issues with Frances' argument. Lastly, I offer an alternative to evaluating a minority view amongst relevant experts.

What is the purpose of rhetorical errors? Rhetoric, as a discipline of theoretical research but also art, thus a discipline tak-ing into account the practical component, can be considered as an inspiring source of many discoveries currently associated with several humanistic branches of science, such as sociology, psychology, philology, logic, communication theory and others . In recent years, rhetoric has luckily enjoyed a revival of interest, especially by linguists, who perceive language not only as a specific system, but also as a tool used by human beings to consciously and intentionally influence their environment . The aim of the present  discussion  is  the  role  of  certain  mechanisms  which  are  usually  considered responsible for language or rhetorical errors . however, as the ars rhetorica theoreti-cians have pointed out, the same mechanisms, when used purposefully, in the right place and in the right way, may play a completely different role: they become means which enable modern linguistic and communicational solutions . It is worth mention-ing that the logical, grammatical or other error has a humorous effect .

Since the emergence of the fourth industrial revolution which calls for a new model of learning for the twenty-first century learners, it has been argued that the nature of problems that learners must solve in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) must also be transformed to enable new forms of learning skills that are needed to tackle complex global challenges. However, the question of how best to teach these skills purposefully and explicitly is largely overlooked. STEM education reformers recognize that the lecture method or traditional method of teaching is highly ineffective for teaching twenty-first century competencies and skills that learners need to develop, yet widespread use of this approach continues. In today's world, we need STEM graduates who are more sophisticated in understanding the uncertainty of knowledge through quasi-reflective thinking when there is uncertainty about a solution to a problem. For this to happen, STEM learners need skills such as critical thinking, decision-making, innovation, the ability to communicate new knowledge effectively, and the ability to solve various kinds of problems through negotiation and collaboration, all of which present a corpus of knowledge to be constructed and mastered in a learner-driven pedagogy. Therefore, rethinking the kind of problem-solving skills we teach twenty-first century learners is as crucial as identifying a suitable instructional model. This paper demonstrates how the domain of ill-structured problems-based learning may contribute to the development and mastery of twenty-first century competencies and skills and advance the quality of learning through the argumentation model.

In this article we examined aspects of negotiation within a persuasion framework. Specifically, we investigated how the provision of arguments that justified the first offer in a negotiation affected the behavior of the parties, namely, how it influenced counteroffers and settlement prices. In a series of 4 experiments and 2 pilot studies, we demonstrated that when the generation of counterarguments was easy, negotiators who did not add arguments to their first offers achieved superior results compared with negotiators who used arguments to justify their first offer. We hypothesized and provided evidence that adding arguments to a first offer was likely to cause the responding party to search for counterarguments, and this, in turn, led him or her to present counteroffers that were further away from the first offer.

In a very interesting recent article (“Who Are The Best Judges Of Theistic Arguments?” Sophia 35, 2, 1996, pp.1–12), Mark Nelson argues that the best judges of arguments for the existence of God are theists whose belief in God is properly basic. I propose to take up two questions here. First, does Nelson’s argument succeed in establishing his conclusion? Second, if Nelson’s argument were successful, what significance would it be appropriate to attribute to his conclusion? I shall begin with a brief rehearsal of his argument, and a discussion of some questions about the proper formulation of his argument which immediately arise.

“The magazine team has had a general fascination for old books. Some days back, we found a bunch of Shilpasagars, while treasure hunting through the old rooms of JJ. A curious peep ended up with a compilation of what touched us, inspired us, engaged us, thrilled us and made us laugh.”
- Pooja Ugrani, Editor 2006

Their compilation began with the first editorial in 1931; “What is a Balcony?” was chosen from the 1994 issue (when I was in the visiting faculty of Sir JJ College of Architecture) and later published in 1996 architectural column in Business Standard “Powerful Wings: Cantilever & Balcony.” Coincidentally, in 2006, it was also a part of my reading at the office of Caruso St John Architects in London UK. (poster in Talks section).

Expert consensus is crucial for those who are not relevant experts in the field in which they are studying. However, for those who are a relevant expert in the field of a philosophic subject, there is a debate that asks if a minority view can ever be considered rational. Bryan Frances argues that if one is a relevant expert in a field, and is in the minority, their views must be irrational. In this essay I will be arguing that Frances’ argument fails in terms of the ‘explanation’ way, leading to leery acceptance of the ‘no-process’ way. I argue that relevant expert consensus does not matter; it is evaluating the argument that one makes. First, I discuss the debate on whether a relevant expert can disregard consensus and what a relevant expert is. Secondly, I deconstruct Frances’ view charitably. Third, I analyze the issues with Frances’ argument. Lastly, I offer an alternative to evaluating a minority view amongst relevant experts.

This paper adapts Grim´s Cantorian argument against the existence of the set of all truths in order to show that there is no set of all —deductive; valid; sound— arguments.
Este trabajo adapta el argumento cantoriano de Grim en contra de la existencia del conjunto de todas las verdades con la finalidad de mostrar que no existe el conjunto de todos los argumentos —deductivos; válidos; sólidos—.

The contemporary city is informed by a habitability divided between the modes imposed by the devices of "biopolitical democracy" and the shared elaborations of "terrible communities". This produces a shear in its configuration, which install behaviors that try to articulate this unbearable present emptiness in our lives. In four movements, we want to report of “common places, weapon, temporalities, dynamizations…” that treat of that a world appears. We are in the presence of a repeated transit along the construction of modern urbanity, which now has definitely reached -in the complete realization of its original model- become a great "interior". As celebrates that moment of joy and amazement the title of the article, the "prisoner nomads" would now be engaged in the construction of their narrative and arguments.

Global Climate Change(GCCs) represents one of the greatest challlenges for
mankind . In addition to being a global problem as the name itself indicates, they involve
several sectors of society, requires awareness on the importance of the issue, and demand
changes in many consumption habits and behavior.The growing emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and other gases such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (NO2) in the atmosphere has raised serious problems such as the greenhouse effect. Owing to the quantity of CO2 issued, it is the gases that contributes the most to global warming . The study discuses about the carbon credits, trading of carbon credit, credit offset, arguments in favour and against of carbon credit benefits to atmosphere.

N.B. : Un « objet itérateur » est créé sans l’opérateur « new ».

Tout comme la commande return, la commande yield renvoie une valeur de retour mais dans la propriété .value de l’objet itérateur. La commande return quant à elle renvoie la valeur de retour dans le propre type de cette dernière.

Contrairement à return, yield ne clôt pas l’exécution de la fonction géné-ratrice mais la suspend seulement pour être poursuivie à l’invocation de la prochaine méthode .next(), qui exécutera jusqu’à la rencontre de la pro-chaine instruction yield ou return.

...
En simple, on peut dire que

1. yield est une sorte de return qui contrairement à ce dernier ne clôt pas mais suspend/interrompt l’exécution de la fonction génératrice. La valeur de la propriété « générateur.done » demeure true.

2. return retourne aussi une valeur mais clôt le générateur, la valeur de la propriété « générateur.done » devenant false.

3. Cette fonction génératrice est définie avec le mot clé iterator.

4. La méthode .next(), appelée pour la première fois, exécute toute la fonction génératrice jusqu’à yield. Les prochaines fois que .next() est appelée, elle poursuit l’exécution de la fonction génératrice là où yield l’avait suspendue.

5. Chaque appel à la méthode .next() doit avoir un yield qui lui est asso-cié dans le générateur. Une façon facile de le garantir est d’utiliser une boucle valide qui contient l’instruction yield. Pendant qu’on est dans cette boucle yield renvoie une valeur valide, dès qu’on quitte la boucle elle (yield) renvoie undefined, à moins de prévoir des yield supplémentaire après et en dehors de cette boucle.

6. Mais il n’est pas nécessaire (bien que souvent inutile) d’avoir plus de yield dans le générateur que de .next() appelées.


7. Un yield n’est pas obligé d’être dans une boucle.

8. Tout comme return, yield renvoie des valeurs de tout type, pas seu-lement des booléennes, mais il (le yield) n’est pas non plus obligé d’en renvoyer explicitement, par exemple quand le .next() qui l’appelle utilise un ou des arguments.

9. La valeur de retour de yield peut être utilisée « in situ » [ex. con-sole.log(yield)] ou être recueillie à partir de la propriété .« value » de la méthode .next() de l’obet générateur [ex. gen.next().value].

10. Comme yield ne clôt pas la fonction mais seulement la suspend, les variables locales de la fonction génératrice persistent donc après cette suspension par yield.

En fait on peut comprendre la méthode « next » comme demandant au « yield » d’envoyer la prochaine valeur de retour.

11. La boucle « for…of » agit sur les « itérables », tandis que la boucle « for…in » agit sur les « énumérables ».

The paper examines the intellectual relationship of Roland Barthes with some Italian authors in the 1950s and 1960s. First, some letters by Barthes with the poet and intellectual Franco Fortini are explored in order to reconsider also the role of two Marxist literary reviews, such as Ragionamenti and Arguments, which collaborate together during the post-Stalinism crisis. Then, we focus on the breakdown between Barthes and Fortini and the role played by Pier Paolo Pasolini’s idea of “abjuration” of the past concerning Barthes’s relationship with institutional powers and his auto-critique. The final comparison of mythological analysis by Barthes with the whole semiological experience of Umberto Eco shows the theoretical and literary connections between Barthes’s work and some Eco’s writing (e.g. Diario minimo).