Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Argumentation
Erschienen in: Argumentation 4/2016

16.11.2015

Reflective Argumentation: A Cognitive Function of Arguing

verfasst von: Michael H. G. Hoffmann

Erschienen in: Argumentation | Ausgabe 4/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

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.
Nächster Artikel Interpretative Disputes, Explicatures, and Argumentative Reasoning

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
See for different classifications of argument functions along these lines, but with varying terminology, Wenzel (1979), Walton (1989, pp. 3–10), Tindale (1999, pp. 1–6), and Lumer (2005b). A longer list of seven “uses of argument” has been provided by Blair (2004, pp. 139–141). Focusing on “The Uses of Argument in Communicative Contexts,” Pinto (2010) provided a detailed overview “of the main categories of effect which arguments can have, and the main sub-types within each category” (p. 227). In Sect. 3 of this paper I will re-organize all these approaches in a new classification of argument functions or uses.
 
2
I am grateful to Martin Eppler who pointed out in personal communication that finding out which beliefs and values one perceives as important or which value differences can lead to disagreements could also be a function of reflective argumentation.
 
3
Note that my view that intentions are necessary for arguments is not shared by David Hitchcock. In personal communication he pointed out that my view implies that arguments are tokens, not types. But this should not pose any problem since we can refer to the same token when we talk about an argument, or if we interpret two arguments as being identical, we can say these are tokens of the same type.
 
4
Alternatively, as Goddu (2009, p. 10) suggests, the definition of argument could be extended by allowing that premises can be both assertives and what he calls “suppositives,” i.e., propositions that are just supposed, hypothesized, or pretended.
 
5
This is indeed the position Van Eemeren et al. (2014) hold in their Handbook of Argumentation Theory: “In our usage … a communicative activity that is not aimed at resolving a difference of opinion is not considered as argumentation” (p. 2, Fn. 1).
 
6
My thanks go to an anonymous reviewer for this example.
 
7
Elsewhere, I show how such an approach to stimulate a change of perspective with regard to wicked problems can be realized in ethics education (Hoffmann and Borenstein 2014).
 
8
See, for example, Bar-Tal (2007). Earlier versions of the following considerations have been published in Hoffmann (2008), particularly pp. 4–10, and Hoffmann (2011a), pp. 141–147.
 
9
There is a huge and ever growing literature in cognitive science and related disciplines on “diagrammatic” or “model-based reasoning,” and in educational sciences on the role of representations for learning. Since it would be impossible to discuss all this here, I limit myself to a few ideas that are central to my approach to reflective argumentation. These ideas go back to what Peirce developed more than a hundred years ago.
 
10
Lawson himself provides as an example Paul Loewi’s discovery that the neuronal stimulation of muscles is triggered by chemical, not electrical signals (Lawson 2006, pp. 111–113). A more comprehensive representation of Loewi’s reasoning pattern than the one provided by Lawson is developed in Hoffmann (2014a); see also Hoffmann (2014b). Additionally, Hoffmann (2014c) provides a template for the testing of hypotheses in biomedical research in general. It includes also things such as the justification of appropriate sample sizes in experiments.
 
11
This argument is presented in more detail in an argument map that is part of the supplementary material to this article (Online Resource 2).
 
Literatur
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bar-Tal, D. 2007. Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist 50: 1430–1453.CrossRef
Belland, B.R., K.D. Glazewski, and J.C. Richardson. 2008. A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development 56(4): 401–422. doi:10.​1007/​s11423-007-9074-1.CrossRef
Buchanan, A. 2002. Social moral epistemology. Social Philosophy & Policy 19(2): 126–152.CrossRef
Buckingham Shum, S. 2003. The roots of computer-supported 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, 3–24. London: Springer.CrossRef
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.
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.
Campitelli, G., and M. Labollita. 2010. Correlations of cognitive reflection with judgments and choices. Judgment and Decision Making 5(3): 182–191.
Chaiken, S., and Y. Trope. 1999. Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
Conklin, J. 2006. Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
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.
Diogenes-Laertius. 1925. Lives of eminent philosophers. Ed. and trans. by R.D. Hicks. London, New York: W. Heinemann; G.P. Putnam’s sons.
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.
Dunlosky, J., and J. Metcalfe. 2009. Metacognition. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Euclid. 1956. The thirteen books of the elements. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Flavell, J.H. 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist 34(10): 906–911.CrossRef
Fogelin, R. 1985. The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic 7: 1–8.
Goldman, A.I. 1994. Argumentation and social epistemology. The Journal of Philosophy 91(1): 27–49.CrossRef
Goldman, A.I. 1999. Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRef
Goldman, A.I. 2003. An epistemological approach to argumentation. Informal Logic 23: 51–63.
Haack, S. 2003. Defending science–within reason. Between scientism and cynicism. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Harman, G. 1986. Change in view: Principles of reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Harrell, M. 2012. Assessing the efficacy of argument diagramming to teach critical thinking skills in introduction to philosophy. Inquiry 27(2): 31–38.
Hintikka, J. 2007. Socratic epistemology: Explorations of knowledge-seeking by questioning. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Hitchcock, D. 2007. Informal logic and the concept of argument. In Philosophy of logic, ed. D. Jaquette, 101–129. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRef
Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2004. How to get it. Diagrammatic reasoning as a tool of knowledge development and its pragmatic dimension. Foundations of Science 9(3): 285–305.CrossRef
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.
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.CrossRef
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.
Hoffmann, M.H.G. 2011c. “Theoric Transformations” and a new classification of abductive inferences. Transactions of the Charles S Peirce Society 46(4): 570–590.CrossRef
Hoffmann, M.H.G., and J. Borenstein. 2014. Understanding ill-structured engineering ethics problems through a collaborative learning and argument visualization approach. Science and Engineering Ethics 20(1): 261–276. doi:10.​1007/​s11948-013-9430-y.CrossRef
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.
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.
Jermann, P., and P. Dillenbourg. 2003. Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL scenario. In Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, ed. J.E.B. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D.D. Suthers, 205–226. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRef
Jonassen, D.H., and Y.H. Cho. 2011. Fostering argumentation while solving engineering ethics problems. Journal of Engineering Education 100(4): 680–702.CrossRef
Jonassen, D.H., and B. Kim. 2010. Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development 58(4): 439–457. doi:10.​1007/​s11423-009-9143-8.CrossRef
Jonassen, D.H., D. Shen, R.M. Marra, Y.H. Cho, J.L. Lo, and V.K. Lohani. 2009. Engaging and supporting problem solving in engineering ethics. Journal of Engineering Education 98(3): 235–254.CrossRef
Kahan, D.M. 2013. Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making 8(4): 407–424.
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow, 1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D., and S. Frederick. 2002. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, ed. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman, 49–81. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.
King, P.M., and K.S. Kitchener. 2004. Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist 39(1): 5–18. doi:10.​1207/​s15326985ep3901_​2.CrossRef
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.
Kitchener, K.S. 1983. Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. A 3-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development 26(4): 222–232.CrossRef
Klein, N. 2014. This changes everything. Capitalism vs. the climate. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kuhn, D. 1991. The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Kuhn, D. 1992. Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review 62(2): 155–178.CrossRef
Kuhn, D. 1993. Science as argument—implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education 77(3): 319–337.CrossRef
Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
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.
Lawson, A.E. 1995. Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publication.
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.
Lewicki, R.J., B. Gray, and M. Elliott (eds.). 2003. Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts. Concepts and cases. Washington - Covelo - London: Island Press.
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.
Lumer, C. 2005a. The epistemological theory of argument—How and Why? Informal Logic 25(3): 213–243.
Lumer, C. 2005b. Introduction: The epistemological theory of argumentation—a map. Informal Logic 25(3): 189–212.
Metcalfe, J., and A.P. Shimamura. 1994. Metacognition. Knowing about knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Munneke, L., J. Andriessen, G. Kanselaar, and P.A. Kirschner. 2007. Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem. Computers in Human Behavior 23(3): 1072–1088. doi:10.​1016/​j.​chb.​2006.​10.​003.CrossRef
Nelson, T.O. 1992. Metacognition. Core readings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Norton, B.G. 2005. Sustainability. A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
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.
Palus, C.J., and D.M. Horth. 2001. Putting something in the middle: An approach to dialogue. Reflections 3(2): 28–39.CrossRef
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.
Peirce. (EP). The essential Peirce. Selected philosophical writings. Vol. 1 (1867–1893), Vol. 2 (1893–1913). Bloomington and Indianapolis 1992 +1998: Indiana University Press.
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.
Peña-Ayala, A. 2015. Metacognition. Fundaments, applications, and trends: A profile of the current state-of-the-art. Cham; New York: Springer.CrossRef
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.
Piaget, J. 1970. Genetic epistemology. Trans. E. Duckworth. New York: Columbia University Press.
Piaget, J. 1977. Recherches sur l’abstraction réfléchissante. Paris: Presses univ. de France.
Pinto, R.C. 2001. Generalizing the notion of argument Argument, Inference and Dialectic. Collected Papers on Informal Logic (pp. 10–20). Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer.
Rahwan, I., F. Zablith, and C. Reed. 2007. Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15): 897–921.CrossRef
Ritchey, T. 2011. Wicked problems—social messes decision support modelling with morphological analysis. Berlin; London: Springer.CrossRef
Rittel, H.W.J., and M.M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155–169.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Sampson, V., J. Grooms, and J.P. Walker. 2011. Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education 95(2): 217–257. doi:10.​1002/​sce.​20421.CrossRef
Sampson, V., and J.P. Walker. 2012. Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate students write to learn by learning to write in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education 34(10): 1443–1485. doi:10.​1080/​09500693.​2012.​667581.CrossRef
Schön, D.A., and M. Rein. 1994. Frame reflection. Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: BasicBooks.
Schwarz, B.B., Y. Neuman, J. Gil, and M. Ilya. 2003. Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences 12(2): 219–256.CrossRef
Selvin, A.M. 2003. Fostering collective intelligence: Helping groups use visualized argumentation. In Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-making, ed. P.A. Kirschner, S.J. Buckingham Shum, and C.S. Carr, 137–163. London: Springer.CrossRef
Sextus, E. (1912). Sexti Empirici Opera. Recensuit Hermannus Mutschmann. Vol. I, Pyrroneion Ypotyposeon. libros tres continens. Lipsiae: in aedibus B. G. Teubneri.
Sloman, S.A. 1996. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 119(1): 3–22.CrossRef
Stanovich, K.E. 2011. Rationality and the reflective mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
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/​s0140525x0000343​5.
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.
Stjernfelt, F. 2007. Diagrammatology: An investigation on the borderlines of phenomenology, ontology, and semiotics. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.CrossRef
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.
Suthers, D.D., and C.D. Hundhausen. 2003. An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences 12(2): 183–218.CrossRef
Tindale, C.W. 1999. Acts of arguing. A rhetorical model of argument. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Tindale, C.W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Toplak, M.E., R.F. West, and K.E. Stanovich. 2011. The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & Cognition 39(7): 1275–1289. doi:10.​3758/​s13421-011-0104-1.CrossRef
Toulmin, S. 2003 <1958>. The uses of argument (updated ed.). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.CrossRef
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.
Van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Veenman, M.J., B.A.M. Van Hout-Wolters, and P. Afflerbach. 2006. Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning 1(1): 3–14. doi:10.​1007/​s11409-006-6893-0.CrossRef
Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
Walton, D.N. 1989. Informal logic. A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D.N., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Wenzel, J.W. 1979. Jürgen Habermas and the dialectical perspective on argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association 16: 83–94.
Metadaten
Titel
Reflective Argumentation: A Cognitive Function of Arguing
verfasst von
Michael H. G. Hoffmann
Publikationsdatum
16.11.2015
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Argumentation / Ausgabe 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0920-427X
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8374
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9388-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2016

Argumentation 4/2016 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Comment on Roderic A. Girle’s “Proof and Dialogue in Aristotle”

OriginalPaper

On Name-Dropping: The Mechanisms Behind a Notorious Practice in Social Science and the Humanities

OriginalPaper

Johnson and the Soundness Doctrine

BookReview

Review of: Frans H. van Eemeren (2015): Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics, Cham (CH), Springer (= Argumentation Library, 27), 880 pp.

OriginalPaper

How Morality Can Be Absent from Moral Arguments

OriginalPaper

Interpretative Disputes, Explicatures, and Argumentative Reasoning