The Art of Argumentation

Developing Arguments for

the Science Classroom

Kris CarrollCPDD

Curriculum & Professional Development Division, Science Health & Foreign Language June, 2009

What is an Argument? Variations in Argument: Types of Claims, Evidence, and Warrants

Refining the Argument Fallacies in Reasoning: The Pitfalls in Arguing

Our Intervention Your Task



Argument- a stated position with support, for or against an idea or issue.


Stating a Claim Providing Evidence Giving Warrants


Claim- also called a proposition; declares some state of affairs, often stated as a thesis statement.Often referred to as the “conclusion” within science

Answers the question, “what are you trying to prove?”


Evidence- material that provides grounds for belief in a claim.

Statistics Testimony Facts Examples Data Graphs Narratives


Claim – You are guilt of a robbery.

Evidence – Your fingerprints are found at the crime scene.

Warrant – Is a rationale needed? Why?


Warrant- a statement that provides the logical connection between some evidence and a claim.

Step-by-step method: Write down the claim. List each possible piece of evidence

you have in support of the claim. Write down the corresponding warrants

that link the evidence to the claim.


Warrant- a statement that provides the logical connection between some evidence and a claim.

The warrant is the rationale, reason or why that explains the connection between the claim and the evidence.

The warrant is controlled by content knowledge.

Therefore, the warrant is governed by the individual’s past experiences.

The depth of the warrant is mediated by the cognitive and metacognitive process.


Types of Claims Types of Evidence Types of Warrants


Claims of fact- focus on conditions that actually exist, existed, or will exist in the future.

Speculative claims- probable answers to questions for which no answers exist.

Claims of value- addressing issues of judgment.

Claims of policy- recommend a specific course of action to be taken.


Audience Knowledge and Opinions

Speaker Knowledge and Opinions

External Evidence Tests of Evidence

◦ relevance◦ timeliness◦ source credibility


Motivational warrants- use the needs, desires, emotions, and values of audience.

Authoritative warrants- rely on an audience’s beliefs about the credibility or acceptability of a source of evidence.

Substantive warrants- operate on the basis of an audience’s beliefs about the reliability of factual evidence.

Warrants by cause- offer a cause and effect relationship as proof for a claim.


Warrants by sign- infer that such a close relationship exists between two variables that the presence or action of one may be taken as the presence or action of the other.

Warrants by analogy- compare two similar cases and infer that what is true in one is true in the other.


All attempts at persuasion are subject to counter-persuasion.

Inoculation effect- by anticipating counter-arguments and then addressing or rebutting them, you can “inoculate” your listeners against the “virus” of the viewpoints.


Fallacy- a false or erroneous statement, or an invalid or deceptive line of reasoning.


Begging the Question Bandwagoning Overgeneralization Ad Hominem

Argument


Stating in an impressive sounding way a claim that really has no substance at all.


Assigning a claim greater substance by making it appear more popular than it really is.


Attempts to support a claim by asserting that a particular piece of evidence is true for all persons concerned.


Attacking an opponent instead of the opponent’s argument.◦ Attempting to incite an

audience’s dislike for an opponent.



The lab report is a model of a scientific argument.

Critical thinking is supported and fostered through content knowledge.

A rationale (warrant) can be developed and enhanced with the strength of content knowledge.

The reason or rationale that connects claims and evidence is often unrepresented within the classroom. (REFLECTION)


Conclusion

Data & Analysis

Not represented

Claim

Evidence

Reason, Why & How


Claim Evidence

Why, How, Reason and Rationale


Professional Development is science, this is the model we are using to enhance content knowledge and develop meaning from the evidence to claim connection.

This mechanism was proven to enhance content knowledge. Crippen, 2009

The use of argumentation was shown to have a positive correlation with content knowledge. Critical thinking and content knowledge are directly related.


Luck

◦ Luck is being in the right place at the right time.

◦ Winning MEGAbucks!◦ There is no possible

explanation for winning megabucks other than chance and happenstance.

Non-Luck

◦ Luck is when preparation meets opportunity.

◦ Winning the WSOP◦ Winning the WSOP

requires much skill, focused attention, patience, practice, and perseverance.



In: What claims can you make about how ________ contributes to your understanding of __________.

Out: What warrant can you explicitly draw from your claim and evidence connection from this activity?

Each day, you need to record in your notebook…


OUT OCCURS AFTER ALL HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS ARE DONE!

Through out this institute there will be many activities, assignments and labs. Within these activities, what is the evidence and claim connection? Why or what is the rationale for the connection?

What knowledge base is described, standards addressed and connections to content are present?

Is the knowledge base robust enough, or will you need to further develop connections?

Each day, you need to record in your notebook…


Date post:	20-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	olympe
View:	24 times
Download:	0 times

The Art of Argumentation

Documents