• 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.

• Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics
• /
• v.1 no.2
• /
• pp.331-347
• /
• 2001

In this study I investigate two implicit arguments in English middles: discharged argument and event argument. I argue that in middle formation external argument is discharged and event argument is suppressed. The proposal can account for the problems with the previous studies (Williams 1981; Keyser and Reoper 1984: Roberts 1987: Fagan 1988, 1992: Chung 2000). When a middle derives from the corresponding transitive verb, the subject argument is discharged, being an implicit argument. Argument discharge is different from argument suppression in the passives and argument deletion in the ergatives. I also argue that event argument is suppressed in middle formation. Event argument suppression is supported by the following: (i) The transitive verbs are always eventive but the corresponding middles are stative, and (ii) the middles are underlyingly eventive, (iii) the middles are “adorned” by certain manner adverbials.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.135-165
• /
• 2010

In this paper, I explore Turner's argument against libertarianism. He claims that libertarians can't be compatible with naturalism, without abandoning the Consequence Argument. In order to support this claim, he proposes the Supervenience Argument. According to him, the Supervenience Argument can't be rejected without abandoning either the Consequence Argument or naturalism. But I show that libertarians don't have to accept his Supervenience Argument, even though they stick to the Consequence Argument, and that even though they accept his Supervenience Argument, they don't have to abandon the freedom of agent. For these reasons, I conclude that Turner's argument against libertarianism turns out a failure.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.9
• /
• pp.1470-1488
• /
• 2012

This study examined changes in the quality of written arguments produced by freshman students in general chemistry laboratory classes using the SWH approach over a semester; difference in the quality of written argument between the original writing template (year I) and the extended writing template (year II); and any difference between Total Argument and Holistic Argument scores. 140 writing samples from 14 students on the year I and 228 samples from 19 students on the year II were collected. Results indicated that despite fluctuations, the students were producing stronger argument by the end of semester compared to the beginning of the semester. Original SWH template group received significantly higher argument scores than extended SWH template group. For the most of year I laboratory investigations, there was no significant difference in the quality of argument between Total Argument and Holistic Argument scores. An implication of this study would be to provide opportunities for students to practice constructing arguments using the original SWH writing template including questions, claims, evidence, and reflection.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.8 no.3
• /
• pp.309-317
• /
• 2015

This study aims to find out the argument structure which appears in the type of argument class (teacher- and student-centered) of the high school. The argument structure was compared and analyzed according to analyzing the study achievement and verified the academic achievement related to climate change. The results are listed below. First, the student-centered class is more effective method through the result that analyzed the class type of the teacher in argument-centered class. This result is to suggest more effective method to revitalize the argument activity of students-centered class which students plan for themselves and find more various materials. Second, teacher-centered class is more effective in contrast with argument analysis in the academic achievement test. While this is why the teacher-centered class utilizes an essential data necessary to curriculum in the argumentation, the elements to form the argument increased because students utilized the materials with their interest and concern in the process of proving in the student-centered class. Through the results of the research, it is necessary to develop the argument-centered programs for the science class and the curriculum-centered materials for argument class activity.

• 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.

• The Mathematical Education
• /
• v.52 no.4
• /
• pp.549-565
• /
• 2013

To help students understand the deduction system in the proof, we analyzed the textbook on mathematics at first. As results, we could find that the textbook' system of deduction is similar with the Euclid' system of deduction. The starting point of deduction is different with each other. But the flow of deduction match with each other. Next, we searched for the example of circular argument and analyzed. As results, we classified the circular argument into two groups. The first is an internal circular argument which is a circular argument occurred in a theorem. The second is an external circular argument which is a circular argument occurred between many theorems. We could know that the flow of deduction system is consistent in internal-external dimension. Lastly, we proposed the desirable teaching direction to help students understand the deduction system in the proof.

• 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.

• Korean Journal of Cognitive Science
• /
• v.6 no.3
• /
• pp.5-23
• /
• 1995

According to a well-known argument (so-called the Godelian argument) proposed by Lucas. Godel's theorem refutes the thesis of mechanism. that is, the thesis that human cognitive system is no more than a Turing machine. The main aim of this paper is to show that this argument is not successful. However. I also argue that many pre-existing objections (by Benacerraf, Slezak. Boyer. Hofstadter etc.) to Gooelian argument are not satisfactory. either. Using Tarski's theorem. I then strengthen what I caII the consistency objection to Godelian argument. In my dilemma objection obtained. Godelian argument doesn't work because the argument has a false premise if we have the concept of global truth and the argument cannot be stated if not.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.6
• /
• pp.1119-1138
• /
• 2013

It has been a decade since argument and argumentation were introduced in science education literature in South Korea. The word "argument" has been translated into three different Korean terms in literature. The purpose of this study was to clarify those translated terms by examining how the terms were defined and used in Korean education research literature. From a philosophical perspective on the diversity of translation, we examined definitions of argument and argumentation, research topics in papers published in major international journals on science education, and reviewed relevant science education papers published in South Korean journals. We reviewed 79 papers published since the year 2000 in major international journals on science education, whose titles have terms argument and/or argumentation and 37 Korean science education papers whose titles have terms translated from the two English words. Findings showed that Korean researchers defined argument and argumentation either in a general sense or in a specific sense such as science investigation or group work aspects, depending on research contexts. Researchers in Korea rarely mentioned the diversity of translation. If they mentioned it, justification for a specific translation of the term was not provided except for in one case. When the same foreign literature was reviewed to define "argument" or "argumentation, different Korean words were used to translate the same two terms. This indicated to the researchers that the translation of the terms was not related to their definitions of them. On the other hand, each research group used a certain translation of the term consistently, indicating that translations might be based on research tradition. Based on the findings, a position on translation of the term is proposed in terms of professionalism and communication between research groups.