• 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.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.1-22
• /
• 2007

본 논문에서 필자는 먼저 "차이를 만들지 않는다(Makes No Difference)"는 논증(줄여서 MND 논증)을 소개하고 이에 대한 앨런 베이커(Alan Baker)의 반론을 자세히 살펴본다. MND 논증, 특히 그 전제를 제대로 평가하기 위해서는 반사실적 조건문에 대한 분석이 필요한데, 베이커는 이를 위해 이갈 크바크(Igal Kvart)의 분석을 이용한다. 이에 필자는 크바트의 분석을 비판함으로써 이에 의존한 베이커의 주장을 비판한다. 이를 위해 필자는 Fine-Tuning 논증을 예로 삼아, 크바트의 반사실적 조건문에 대한 분석, 특히 그의 반법칙적 조건문에 대한 분석은 실제 과학자들의 논의와도 상충되며, 이 과학자들의 논의를 바탕으로 한 철학적 논쟁과도 상충되기 때문에 그의 분석을 받아들일 수 없음을 보인다. 이를 통해 필자는 크바트의 분석에 의존하여 MND 논증을 공격한 베이커의 결론도 마찬가지로 받아들일 수 없다는 것을 보인다.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.76-90
• /
• 2022

In this study, after applying the argument structure class design program for 20 preservice earth science teachers, we conducted individual in-depth interviews, analyzed the data, and derived a scientific argumentation PCK development model. The scientific argumentation PCK development model consists of three dimensions: Scientific argumentation PCK, PCK ecosystem, and reflective practice. Scientific argumentation PCK is demonstrated in the process of designing or executing classes using argumentation structures as an instructional reasoning tool. PCK ecosystem, consisting of the existing conventional PCK components, is a dimension surrounding the scientific argumentation PCK, and these two dimensions develop by interacting with each other. Reflective practice regulates each dimension and develops it in various ways by mediating the two dimensions of the scientific argumentation PCK and the PCK ecosystem. The conclusions drawn based on the results are as follows: First, preservice science teachers can demonstrate scientific argumentation PCK in the process of design and implementation of lessons using argumentation structures as a pedagogical reasoning tool. Second, it is necessary to develop the PCK for pedagogical reasoning tools such as scientific argumentation PCK in advance for the development of science teachers' PCK, since the scientific argumentation PCK can develop various components of the PCK ecosystem. Finally, it is necessary to use scientific argumentation PCK to support the preservice teacher's reflective practice, seeing that the scientific argumentation PCK promotes the development of PCK ecosystem components by inducing reflective practice.

• Journal of the Korean earth science society
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.106-117
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study was to explore students' argumentation in perspectives of epistemology and psychology and to find out how teacher can promote students' abilities of developing argumentation. The 60 hours of lessons from the interaction between one science teacher (Mr. Physics, who had 35 years of teaching experience) and his 26 students were observed, transcribed, and analyzed using two different analyzing tools; one is from the perspective of epistemology and the other from the perspective of psychology, which can portray how argumentation is constructed. Mr. Physics created the environment where students could promote the quality of scientific argumentation through explicit teaching strategy, Claim-Evidence Approach. The low level of argumentation was portrayed through examples from students' prior knowledge or experience in the form of an Appeal to the instance operation and the Elaboration reasoning skill. Students' own claims were developed through application of knowledge in a different context in the form of an Induction operation and Generativity reasoning skill. Higher level of argumentation was portrayed through Consistency operation with other knowledge or experience and Explanation reasoning skills based on students' ideas with more active teacher's inputs. The teacher in this study played a role as a helper for students to enact identities as competent "sense makers," as an elaborator rather than evaluator to extend students' ideas, and as a mentor to foster and monitor the students' development of ideas of a higher quality. It is critical for teachers to understand the nature of argumentation, which in turn is connected to their explicit teaching strategy with the aim of providing opportunities where students can understand the science enterprise.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.509-521
• /
• 2015

Argumentation is a social and collaborative dialogic process. A large number of researchers have focused on analyzing the structure of students' argumentation occurring in the scientific inquiry context, using the Toulmin's model of argument. Since SSI dialogic argumentation often presents distinctive features (e.g. interdisciplinary, controversial, value-laden, etc.), Toulmin's model would not fit into the context. Therefore, we attempted to develop an analytical framework for SSI dialogic argumentation by addressing the concepts of 'discourse clusters' and 'discourse schemes.' Discourse clusters indicated a series of utterances created for a similar dialogical purpose in the SSI contexts. Discourse schemes denoted meaningful discourse units that well represented the features of SSI reasoning. In this study, we presented six types of discourse clusters and 19 discourse schemes. We applied the framework to the data of students' group discourse on SSIs (e.g. euthanasia, nuclear energy, etc.) in order to verify its validity and applicability. The results indicate that the framework well explained the overall flow, dynamics, and features of students' discourse on SSI.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.123-135
• /
• 2021

In this study, we apply a lesson design process using an argumentation structure to preservice earth science teachers and analyzed argumentation levels displayed in the lesson plans written by preservice teachers in the process. As a result of the study, the preservice teachers designed a logically structured lesson by reflecting more argumentation components in the final lesson plan than the first one. In addition, in the case of lesson topics in which all argumentation elements were not explicitly presented in textbooks or curriculum, preservice teachers could not clearly reflect some argumentation components in the lesson plan. The conclusions and implications based on the results are as follows: First, it is necessary to use the argumentation structure as a tool to design logical science lessons, considering that argumentation levels of lesson plans written by preservice science teachers were improved by using argumentation structures in instructional design. Next, it is necessary to cultivate the preservice science teacher's ability to reconstruct the curriculum for science lesson design using the argumentation structure since argumentation levels of lesson plans written by preservice science teachers were limited to the argumentation components presented in the textbook and curriculum. Additionally, it is necessary to develop and apply a preservice teacher education program that uses the argumentation structure in the context of actual teaching activities so that preservice science teachers can not only understand argumentation but also improve their class expertise.

• Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.701-725
• /
• 2017

Students need to have opportunities to share their ideas with peers by taking part in the conversation voluntarily that is, by persuading others and reflecting the consequences. Recognizing the importance of this point, this study intended to examine students' argumentation occurring in the process of performing tasks in the math classroom. Also, it tried to explore the types of the argument that students used in the classroom and the reason why they employed them with a focus on 'rebuttal', which is one of the six elements of the argument scheme such as claim, data, warrent, backing, qualifiers, and rebuttal. The analysis of argumentation is based on the five argumentation schemes suggested by Verheij(2005). The experimental class was conducted twice a week with four participants who are third grade middle school students. In the argumentation class students were promoted to address two different kinds of geometrical tasks. After the second session of class, the researcher conducted the semi-structured interview. Accordingly, this study contributes to the existing research by making students to have concrete and active argumentation while obtaining the sound understanding of the argumentation.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.199-209
• /
• 2008

In a recent paper, Wonbae Choi raises two objections to my interpretation of the argument in Proslogium 3. The first one is that my interpretation is not new, and the second one is that there is an alternative interpretation which is better than mine. I defend my interpretation against them. I also touch on a related issue which can be derived from his second objection.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.29 no.8
• /
• pp.824-827
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the changes in structure and contents of different functional genre of science writing during high school using the argumentation structure. For this thesis, seven students of a girls' high school in the national capital region took the argumentation structure instruction for 40 hours for a month. As a result, considerable changes had occurred amid the Explanation genre, the Experiment-recount genre and the Exposition genre. In the Explanation genre and the Experiment-recount genre, noticeable progress had been made in the usage of the argumentation elements and scientific concepts and knowledge evolved in a more rarified and detailed manner. In the Exposition genre, argumentation structure had changed from the simple argumentation structure to the subordination or the multiplex argumentation structure. Simultaneously, it was affirmed that the types and number of the argumentation elements increased significantly along with enlargement of respective scientific concepts and knowledge. Hence, this implies students can determine their understanding of scientific facts and contents during the progress of developing the argumentation structure. It is necessary that students take the well-organized argumentation structure instruction.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.25-53
• /
• 2020

Hong and Yeo choose the intention criterion instead of the realization criterion for distinguishing deductive and inductive argument in their paper. This study aims to criticize their argument. I contend that their argument confuses argument reconstruction and argument classification[evaluation], and is making the mistake of utilizing the realization criterion when attempting to make up for the difficulties of the intention criterion. Also, most logicians, including Hong and Yeo, support the division of the argument into deductions, inductions, and bad arguments. Here I insist on a binary division of only deduction and induction. Finally, I argue that there is no need to teach the distinction between deduction and induction when teaching logic.