• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.61-82
• /
• 2010

The argument from ignorance that knowledge conclusion is derived from ignorance premises is claimed to be fallacious by many logicians such as I. Copi. According to them, some arguments from ignorance which seem to be acceptable are not really the arguments from ignorance. They say that such arguments have implicitly conditional knowledge premise. Against them, I argue that every argument from ignorance can be interpreted as having a hidden conditional premise, and that every argument from ignorance is not fallacious. I propose the criterion to judge which argument from ignorance is fallacious and which is persuasive. In particular, I argue that social contexts play a crucial role to judge whether a practical argument is fallacious or not.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.141
• /
• pp.187-202
• /
• 2017

The aim of this paper is to clarify the difference between the concept of deduction-induction and Aristotle's concept of syllogismos-epagoge. First, Aristotle does not use the expression 'invalid syllogismos'. But a valid deduction is distinguished from a invalid deduction in modern logic. Second, from Aristotle's point of view syllogismos is paralleled by epagoge. Because syllogismos is equivalent to epagoge in logical form. But a disturbing lack of parallelism exists between deduction and induction by which the standards for establishing inductive conclusions are more demanding than those for deductive ones. Third, instructors in introductory logic courses ordinarily stress the need to evaluate arguments first in terms of the strength of the conclusion relative to the premises. Accordingly, students may be told to assume that premises are true. But Aristotle does not assume that premises are true. A syllogismos start from the conceptually true premise and a epagoge start from the empirically true premise.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.840-862
• /
• 2013

This study undertook a methodological investigation on previous research that had proposed alternative methods for analyzing argumentative discourse in science classes in terms of collaborative construction and epistemic enactments of argumentation. The study also proposed a new way of analyzing argumentation discourse based on the achievements and limitations of previous research. The new method was applied to actual argumentation discourse episodes to examine its feasibility. For these purposes, we chose the studies employing Toulmin's argument layout, seeking for a method to analyze comprehensively the structure, content, and justification of arguments, or emphasizing evidence-based reasoning processes of argumentation discourse. In addition, we contrived an alternative method of analyzing argumentative discourse, Discourse Register on the Evidence-Explanation Continuum (DREEC), and applied DREEC to an argumentative discourse episode that occurred in an actual science classroom. The advanced methods of analyzing argumentative discourse used in previous research usually examined argument structure by the presence and absence of the elements of Toulmin's argument layout or its extension. Those methods, however, had some problems in describing and comparing the quality of argumentation based on the justification and epistemic enactments of the arguments, while they could analyze and compare argumentative discourse quantitatively. Also, those methods had limitations on showing participants' collaborative construction during the argumentative discourse. In contrast, DREEC could describe collaborative construction through the relationships between THEMEs and RHEMEs and the links of data, evidence, pattern, and explanation in the discourse, as well as the justification of arguments based on the flow of epistemic enactments of the argumentative discourse.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.151-182
• /
• 2019

According to the realization criterion that distinguishes deductive argument from inductive argument, the realized necessity relation between the premises and the conclusion defines deductive argument. In this case, 'invalid deductive argument' is an oxymoron. According to the intention criterion, the intended necessity relation between the premises and the conclusion defines deductive argument. In this case, 'invalid deductive argument' is not an oxymoron. In this paper, we will argue for the intention criterion. The realization criterion cannot classify an elliptical argument without referring to the intention represented in the argument. It cannot distinguish an argument from a set of propositions that is not an argument either. On the other hand, the problem that an intention may not be recognized in an argument can be resolved by referring to the principle of charity. Moreover, by distinguishing the expressions showing the conviction or the attitude to the argument from the intention of the argument, we conclude that the intention criterion successfully distinguishes deductive argument from inductive argument.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.203-220
• /
• 2021

We explored the performance improvement method of automated scoring for scientific argumentation. We analyzed the pattern of argumentation using automated scoring models. For this purpose, we assessed the level of argumentation for student's scientific discourses in classrooms. The dataset consists of four units of argumentation features and argumentation levels for episodes. We utilized argumentation clusters and n-gram to enhance automated scoring accuracy. We used the three supervised learning algorithms resulting in 33 automatic scoring models. As a result of automated scoring, we got a good scoring accuracy of 77.59% on average and up to 85.37%. In this process, we found that argumentation cluster patterns could enhance automated scoring performance accuracy. Then, we analyzed argumentation patterns using the model of decision tree and random forest. Our results were consistent with the previous research in which justification in coordination with claim and evidence determines scientific argumentation quality. Our research method suggests a novel approach for analyzing the quality of scientific argumentation in classrooms.

• Korean Educational Research Journal
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.109-125
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study was to examine how group argumentations mediated individual arguments by analyzing physics teachers' group argumentation and individual follow-up written arguments. Five in-service physics teachers participated in this study, two middle school and three high school teachers. The topics of argumentation included physics topics and pedagogy of them. Findings showed that the teachers constructed much more elaborated individual written arguments than group argumentation, which seemed to be resulted from different perceptions of teachers' verbal and written argumentations. Also, in their written arguments the teachers selectively utilized their colleagues' ideas shared during group argumentation. Lastly, teachers' argumentation showed different features between topics of physics and physics pedagogy. These differences were related to their orientations toward argumentation about content knowledge and teaching. These findings shed light on a productive physics teacher professional development in argumentation.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.99-107
• /
• 2007

최근 김세화는 "프로슬로기온" 3장에 나오는 논증을 새롭게 해석하는 방안을 제시했다고 주장한다. 그에 따르면, 그가 제시한 논증 III 은 3장에 대한 기존의 해석과 다르며, 3장에 대한 또 다른 가능한 해석인 논증 IV보다도 더 낫다. 여기서 나는 논증 III은 기존의 해석과 견주어 볼 때 새롭다고 하기 어려우며, 나아가 그가 원하는 결론을 얻고자 한다면 도리어 논증 III보다 논증 IV를 택해야 함을 보인다.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.129
• /
• pp.267-290
• /
• 2014

The slippery slope argument means that if we accept a type of action A, we are committed to accepting B, C and eventually N. Then, N is situation which we must not accept morally. It works causal mechnism that B because A is raised, C because B is raised. But in the logic textbooks and treatises, the slippery slope argument is classified as fallacy. The reason is that the argument is not a causal argument. Actually, it is a probable. Also it is argued that the argument is wrong because it fears about the future extremely. But We can not say all slippery slope argument is fallacy even though a slippery slope argument is sometimes fallacy. I think it is persuasive argument in a significant place. Therefore I argue that the argument is not simple logic as a form of thinking, but practical reasoning applied the context of dialogue. So in order to find it to be practical reasoning we demand the new understanding to fallacy theory. In traditionally, fallacy is defined to wrong reasoning logically, but according to Walton, fallacy means a verbal tactic or deceptive trick that can be used to cause someone to fall down in argument. That is to say, whether or not the argument is successful depends on how it uses as argument tactic in a given context of dialogue. Therefore I argue that whether or not the argument is successful, because of it is practical problem used in a context of dialogue, is to be approached to pragma and dialectical method, not semantic.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.51-68
• /
• 2003

많은 논리학 교과서들은 정치 현장과 언론의 정치 비평에서 자주 쓰이는 사람에의 호소 논증을 오류로 소개하고 있다. 그러나 사람에 호소하고 있다는 형식을 갖추고 있더라도 논증의 주장이 그 사람 자신에 관한 것이라면 오류가 아니다. 또 그 논증이 이루어지고 있는 구체적인 맥락과 논증이 비판하고 있는 사람의 가치관 등을 모두 검토해서 오류인지 아닌지 평가해야 한다.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.148
• /
• pp.129-156
• /
• 2018

Recently, a lot of articles and writings defending animal right and welfare are introduced into our society. For example, P. Singer's Animal Liberation, T. Regan's The Case for Animal Rights, and J. Rachels's Created From Animal are representative writings of animal ethics. In his books, P. Singer maintains that all animals are equal. T. Regan insisted that animals as a subject of a life have rights. J. Rachels's moral individualism is that how an individual may be treated is to be determined, not by considering his group membership, but by considering his own particular characteristics. Interestingly, they use common argument called 'argument from marginal cases' to justify their theoretical positions. If we can disclose the weakness of the argument, all kinds of animal ethics which defend animal right and welfare such as animal liberation theory, animal rights theory and moral individualism will collapse. In this paper, I will examine the concrete contexts in which Singer, Regan and Rachels make use of the argument. And I will critically examine the argument. Lastly I will show that the attempt to deny the difference of species is unsuccessful.