Reflective Argumentation: A Cognitive Function of Arguing
Why do we formulate arguments? Usually, things such as persuading opponents, finding consensus, and justifying knowledge are listed as functions of arguments. But arguments can also be used to stimulate reflection on one’s own reasoning. Since this cognitive function of arguments should be important to improve the quality of people’s arguments and reasoning, for learning processes, for coping with “wicked problems,” and for the resolution of conflicts, it deserves to be studied in its own right. This contribution develops first steps towards a theory of reflective argumentation. It provides a definition of reflective argumentation, justifies its importance, delineates it from other cognitive functions of argumentation in a new classification of argument functions, and it discusses how reflection on one’s own reasoning can be stimulated by arguments.
KeywordsArgument functions Argument schemes Argument templates Cognition Computer-supported argument visualization Controversy Education Learning Reflection Semiotics Wicked problems
This research has been supported by a grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), U.S. Department of Education (Grant P116S100006). I am thankful for important feedback that David Hitchcock, Bryan Norton, Justin Biddle, J. Britt Holbrook, and two anonymous reviewers provided to earlier versions of this paper.
- Andriessen, J.E.B., M. Baker, and D.D. Suthers (eds.). 2003a. Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Andriessen, J.E.B., G. Erkens, C.V.D. Laak, N. Peters, and P. Coirier. 2003b. Argumentation as negotiation in electronic collaborative writing. In Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, ed. J.E.B. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D.D. Suthers, 79–115. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Arnauld, A., and P. Nicole. 1996 <1683>. Logic, or, the art of thinking: Containing, besides common rules, several new observations appropriate for forming judgment, 5th ed., rev. and newly augmented. Trans. J. V. Buroker. Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Baker, M. 2003. Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, ed. J. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D.D. Suthers, 47–78. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Blair, J.A. 2004. Argument and its uses. Informal Logic 24(2). Retrieved from http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/2140.
- Buratti, S., and C.M. Allwood. 2015. Regulating metacognitive processes—support for a meta-metacognitive ability. In Metacognition. Fundaments, applications, and trends: a profile of the current state-of-the-art, ed. A. Peña-Ayala, 17–38. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Buroker, J.V. 1996. Introduction (Trans. J.V. Buroker). In Logic, or, the art of thinking, ed. A. Arnauld, and P. Nicole, ix–xxvi. Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Campitelli, G., and M. Labollita. 2010. Correlations of cognitive reflection with judgments and choices. Judgment and Decision Making 5(3): 182–191.Google Scholar
- Chaiken, S., and Y. Trope. 1999. Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Conklin, J. 2006. Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Dillenbourg, P. 2002. Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL?, ed. P.A. Kirschner, 61–91. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
- Diogenes-Laertius. 1925. Lives of eminent philosophers. Ed. and trans. by R.D. Hicks. London, New York: W. Heinemann; G.P. Putnam’s sons.Google Scholar
- Donohue, W.A., R.G. Rogan, and S. Kaufman (eds.). 2011. Framing matters: Perspectives on negotiation research and practice in communication. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
- Dunlosky, J., and J. Metcalfe. 2009. Metacognition. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
- Euclid. 1956. The thirteen books of the elements. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
- Facione, P.A. 1990. Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED315423&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED315423.
- Fogelin, R. 1985. The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic 7: 1–8.Google Scholar
- Goddu, G.C. 2009. Refining Hitchcock’s definition of ‘Argument’. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference of the Ontario society for the study of argumentation (OSSA), 1–12. Retrieved from http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA8/papersandcommentaries/55/.
- Goldman, A.I. 2003. An epistemological approach to argumentation. Informal Logic 23: 51–63.Google Scholar
- Haack, S. 2003. Defending science–within reason. Between scientism and cynicism. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
- Harman, G. 1986. Change in view: Principles of reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Harrell, M. 2012. Assessing the efficacy of argument diagramming to teach critical thinking skills in introduction to philosophy. Inquiry 27(2): 31–38.Google Scholar
- Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2005a. Logical argument mapping: A method for overcoming cognitive problems of conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management 16(4): 304–334.Google Scholar
- Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2005b. Signs as means for discoveries. Peirce and his concepts of ‘Diagrammatic Reasoning’, ‘Theorematic Deduction’, ‘Hypostatic Abstraction’, and ‘Theoric Transformation’. In Activity and sign—grounding mathematics education, ed. M.H.G. Hoffmann, J. Lenhard, and F. Seeger, 45–56. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2008. Reflective argumentation. Georgia Tech’s School of Public Policy Working Paper Series, 44. http://www.spp.gatech.edu/publications/working-papers/reflective-argumentation.
- Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2011a. Analyzing framing processes in conflicts and communication by means of logical argument mapping. In Framing matters: Perspectives on negotiation research and practice in communication, W.A. Donohue, R.G. Rogan & S. Kaufman, pp. 136–164. New York, NY: Peter Lang (pre-print available at http://works.bepress.com/michael_hoffmann/37/).
- Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2011b. Cognitive conditions of diagrammatic reasoning. Semiotica 186(1/4): 189–212.Google Scholar
- Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2014a. Argument map: Developing scientific hypotheses and experimental designs in form of an argumentation. Loewi’s crucial experiment on chemical neurotransmission. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/michael_hoffmann/49.
- Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2014b. Argument map: Loewi’s argument that neuro-transmission works with chemical signals instead of electrical (short version). Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/michael_hoffmann/50.
- Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2014c. Hypothesis generation and testing: A template for biomedical research (argument map). Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/michael_hoffmann/48.
- Hoffmann, M.H.G., and M. Plöger. 2000. Mathematik als Prozess der Verallgemeinerung von Zeichen: Eine exemplarische Unterrichtseinheit zur Entdeckung der Inkommensurabilität. Zeitschrift für Semiotik 22(1): 81–114.Google Scholar
- Inhelder, B.R., and J. Piaget. 1958. The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence; an essay on the construction of formal operational structures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Kahan, D.M. 2013. Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making 8(4): 407–424.Google Scholar
- Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow, 1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
- Kanselaar, G., G. Erkens, J. Andriessen, M. Prangsma, A. Veerman, and J. Jaspers. 2003. Designing argumentation tools for collaborative learning. In Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making, ed. P.A. Kirschner, S.J. Buckingham Shum, and C.S. Carr, 51–70. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- King, P.M., and K.S. Kitchener. 1994. Developing reflective judgment. Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults, 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
- Kirschner, P.A., S.J. Buckingham Shum, and C.S. Carr (eds.). 2003. Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.Google Scholar
- Klein, N. 2014. This changes everything. Capitalism vs. the climate. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Lakoff, G. 2004. Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate—the essential guide for progressives. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Lawson, A.E. 1995. Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publication.Google Scholar
- Lawson, A.E. 2006. Developing scientific reasoning patterns in college biology. In Handbook of college science teaching, ed. J.J. Mintzes, and W.H. Leonard, 109–118. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
- Lewicki, R.J., B. Gray, and M. Elliott (eds.). 2003. Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts. Concepts and cases. Washington - Covelo - London: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Lipstadt, D.E. 1993. Denying the Holocaust: The growing assault on truth and memory. New York; Toronto: Free Press; Maxwell Macmillan Canada; Maxwell Macmillan International.Google Scholar
- Lumer, C. 2005a. The epistemological theory of argument—How and Why? Informal Logic 25(3): 213–243.Google Scholar
- Lumer, C. 2005b. Introduction: The epistemological theory of argumentation—a map. Informal Logic 25(3): 189–212.Google Scholar
- Mazzoni, G., and T.O. Nelson. 2014. Metacognition and cognitive neuropsychology monitoring and control processes (pp. 1 online resource (223 pages)). Retrieved from Ebook Library http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1688987.
- Metcalfe, J., and A.P. Shimamura. 1994. Metacognition. Knowing about knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Mochales-Palau, R., and M.-F. Moens. 2009. Automatic argumentation detection and its role in law and the Semantic Web. In Law, ontologies and the semantic web: Channelling the legal information flood, ed. J. Breuker, 115–129. Amsterdam; Washington, DC: IOS Press.Google Scholar
- Nelson, T.O. 1992. Metacognition. Core readings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
- Oreskes, N., and E.M. Conway. 2010. Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming, 1st ed. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
- Peirce. (CP). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Volumes I–VI, ed. by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss, 1931–1935, Volumes VII-VIII, ed. by Arthur W. Burks, 1958; quotations according to volume and paragraph). Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
- Peirce. (EP). The essential Peirce. Selected philosophical writings. Vol. 1 (1867–1893), Vol. 2 (1893–1913). Bloomington and Indianapolis 1992 +1998: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
- Peirce. (NEM). The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce (Vol. I–IV). The Hague-Paris/Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1976: Mouton/Humanities Press.Google Scholar
- Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969 <1958>. The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
- Piaget, J. 1970. Genetic epistemology. Trans. E. Duckworth. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Piaget, J. 1977. Recherches sur l’abstraction réfléchissante. Paris: Presses univ. de France.Google Scholar
- Pinto, R.C. 2001. Generalizing the notion of argument Argument, Inference and Dialectic. Collected Papers on Informal Logic (pp. 10–20). Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Sampson, V., P. Enderle, J. Grooms, and S. Witte. 2013. Writing to learn by learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas. Science Education 97(5): 643–670. doi: 10.1002/sce.21069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schön, D.A., and M. Rein. 1994. Frame reflection. Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
- Sextus, E. (1912). Sexti Empirici Opera. Recensuit Hermannus Mutschmann. Vol. I, Pyrroneion Ypotyposeon. libros tres continens. Lipsiae: in aedibus B. G. Teubneri.Google Scholar
- Stanovich, K.E. 2011. Rationality and the reflective mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Stanovich, K.E., and R. F. West. 2000. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23(5):645–665; 701–726. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x00003435.
- Stanovich, K.E., R.F. West, and M.E. Toplak. 2011. The assessment of rational thought. In Rationality and the reflective mind, ed. K.E. Stanovich, 191–246. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Stern, N. H. (2006). The economics of climate change. The stern review: Summary of conclusions. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Summary_of_Conclusions.pdf.
- Suthers, D.D. 2003. Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, ed. J. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D.D. Suthers, 27–46. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Tindale, C.W. 1999. Acts of arguing. A rhetorical model of argument. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
- Tindale, C.W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Toulmin, S. 2003 <1958>. The uses of argument (updated ed.). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- U.S. Department of Education, N. C. f. E. S. 2000. The NPEC sourcebook on assessment, Volume 1: Definitions and assessment methods for critical thinking, problem solving, and writing, NCES 2000. Prepared by T. Dary Erwin for the Council of the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative Student Outcomes Pilot Working Group: Cognitive and Intellectual Development. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000195.pdf.
- van Bruggen, J.M., H.P.A. Boshuizen, and P.A. Kirschner. 2003. A cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with argument visualization. In Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making, ed. P.A. Kirschner, S.J. Buckingham-Shum, and C.S. Carr, 25–47. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Van Eemeren, F.H., B. Garssen, E.C.W. Krabbe, A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, B. Verheij, and J.H.M. Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of argumentation theory, 1st ed. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Vygotsky, L.S. 1981. The genesis of higher mental functions. In The concept of activity in Soviet psychology, ed. J.V. Wertsch. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
- Walton, D.N. 1989. Informal logic. A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Wenzel, J.W. 1979. Jürgen Habermas and the dialectical perspective on argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association 16: 83–94.Google Scholar