This study examined using argumentation as a strategy to enable more meaningful learning in science, particularly in enabling students to learn how to evaluate evidence and justify claims.
Endorsing the argument-2 conception of argument, Gilbert 1997 (cf. Carozza 2007) proposes a radical move in this direction, understanding argumentation as an attempt to overcome disagreement, propounding a corresponding theory of "coalescent argument".
The hard right does not accept argumentation as a path to a shared truth; it is simply not how they are wired.
The general epistemic keywords 'inquiry' and 'expla-' were related to argumentation as much as the argumentation-specific epistemic keyword 'evidence' (25.0%).
In this paper we focus on the potential of a course in argumentation as a promising way to empower doctors in presenting their viewpoints and addressing those of patients.
The numerous case studies show in concrete terms many practical aspects of how to use textual evidence to identify and analyze fallacies and to evaluate argumentation as fallacious or not in particular cases.
As might be expected, given this background, the Mohists' logical investigations focus on analogical reasoning, and indeed they tend to treat all argumentation as fundamentally analogical in nature.
These benefits apply to computer-supported argumentation as well (e.g., Kuhn, Goh, Iordanou, & Shaenfiled, 2008, showed improvements in metalevel communication and in reflecting on goals in this context).
But such an admission will undermine the relativist's attempt to convince others of her position, for the very act of argumentation, as it is commonly understood, is an attempt to convince those who disagree with us of the falsehood of their position.
The recent development of the Next Generation Science Education Standards following on from the National Research Council's recommendations (National Research Council 2012) is testimony to the articulation of argumentation as a significant component of scientific practices.
