Monday, May 19th, 2014, 4-6 pm (CET, Stockholm, Berlin Rome)
Abstract: Is there a simple rigorous fail-safe template to easily capture, order, and visually depict the logical relations contained within most any real-world argument? I propose that the answer to date appears to be yes. An empirically derived new categorical natural language inference theory with a supporting visual language (i.e., Defeasible Class-inclusion Transitivity, DCIT) with roots in the “New Syllogistic” term-functor logic of Fred Sommers and George Englebretsen and in robust theories of categorization has successfully met these criteria in the courtroom and the classroom since 2005.
My search for a more effective approach to teaching and learning practical argumentation was fueled by my frustration from witnessing the struggles of many of my law students and expert witness trainees in learning more advanced argumentation. My search began in earnest when a class asked me during the fifth week of a ten week training to provide a more functional explanation of the fundamental difference between a premise and a co-premise and between a linked and a convergent line of reasoning. I found my own explanations based on accepted theory and pedagogy vague and unsatisfactory to really help them meet the real-world demands of succeeding with inferences in court.
So I put the class on hold and told them that we would start over if and when I found a more straightforward and effective path to understanding argumentation. I started by analyzing hundreds of my argument maps for court and eventually saw a predictable pattern. The identical underlying natural language logical pattern or form was always present or implied. Eureka.
I would like to share with you through argument construction and reconstruction examples some of my experience and insights from the use of this simple natural language logic template for simple and complex arguments based on any mode of inference or structure (deductive, inductive, abductive, argument schemes, presumptive, monotonic, defeasible, Toulmin, etc.) [For a sample see YouTube video: “Inadequacies of Typical (tree-like) Argument Diagramming (Mapping)” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhWMVMonLR8.]
5.25-5.50: Group discussion
SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS: Please send a reconstructed argument of your choice, along with at least one diagram that represents the argument-structure on or before FRIDAY 18th of
March April to email@example.com. Time permitting, your reconstruction and diagram may be used to compare it with a reconstruction in DCIT. Submitting such is not a requirement for attending the eColloq.
To participate as a discussant (n.b. ”listening in” is fine, too), please register now.
- Please see the list of discussants
- Uses Adobe Connect, see http://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.html
- To connect, go to: https://connect.sunet.se/ecolloq11/ (this link will work 15 mins prior to the meeting time)
- Before the meeting, test your hardware at : http://admin.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm
- To install a missing plug-in, go to: http://www.adobe.com/support/connect/updates.html