IFBö5520* Bilimsel Açıklamalar ve Argümanlar 27/02/2015

... konulu sunumlar: "IFBö5520* Bilimsel Açıklamalar ve Argümanlar 27/02/2015"— Sunum transkripti:

1 IFBö5520* Bilimsel Açıklamalar ve Argümanlar 27/02/2015
YRD. DOÇ. DR. BAHADIR NAMDAR

2 ARGÜMAN NEDİR Argüman tanımı
Reike ve Sillars (1993): İddialar ve bunların destekleri Besnard Hunter (2008): Bir takım varsayımlar ve bunların sonuçları Zohar ve Nemet (2002): İddialar ya da sonuçların haklı nedenleri ve destekleri

3 YANİ Bir fikri ya da düşünceyi deliller ve ispatlar kullanarak savunma
Açıklamada kullanılan ispat ve deliller argüman

4 ARGÜMANTASYON Argümantasyon Sözel Bilişsel Sosyal

5 AKTİVİTE MEL!

6 ARGÜMANTASYON TÜRLERİ
Sözbilimsel (Rhetorical) Toulmin (1958, Argümanların Kullanımı)

7 Rhetorical Argumentation
Claims are assertions about facts or people’s perceptions or beliefs; Data (Grounds) are statements of foundational evidence that supports a claim; Warrants are used to show why data are relevant to a claim; Qualifiers indicate the strength of warrants to a claim; Backings refer to underlying assumptions which strengthen the acceptability of a claim; and Rebuttals are statements that rebut and defeat the warranting conclusion

8 Dialogical Argumentation
Karşılıklı konuşma (Dialogical) Leitao (2000): Sıralı mantıksal konuşma Van Eemeren ve ark. (1992, 1999, 2004): Pragmatik mantıksal konuşma Barth ve Krabbe (1982): Geleneksel mantıksal konuşma Walton (2007): Diyalog kuramı Leitão (2000) approached argumentation as a social activity and stressed the importance of dialectical nature of argumentation. Hence, this approach incorporates both cognitive and social aspect of argumentation. Hence, in this perspective argumentation takes a sequential cycle where an arguer constructs an argument first, and then the opponent (i.e., the second person or the speaker her/himself) poses a counterargument and the arguer finally creates a reply that captures her/her Pragma dialectics describes argumentation as a communicative discourse aimed at providing space for exchanging verbal moves to solve differences of opinion (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992, 1999, 2004; van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 1999). Although an arguer aims to resolve the difference using dialogic dimensions, at the same time the arguer also aims at reaching this resolution in their own favor by using rhetorical devices. Pragma dialectical analysis includes four stages. (1) Confrontation stage when differences of ideas are defined, (2) opening stage when the speakers state their initial thoughts and provide a starting point for the discourse, (3) argumentation stage when speakers state their arguments, and (4) concluding stage: when the final remarks about the issue are made. Barth & Krabbe's (1982) formal dialectics stems from the idea of conflict resolution. Formal dialectics formulates rules to conduct a discussion for resolving conflicts on avowed opinions. In their definition, avowed opinions are the arguments put forward by the proponent (P) and the opponent (O) of the issue. P asserts a thesis and O attacks the thesis with statements. These statements constitute O’s concessions (cons): “statements for which the opponent is prepared to take responsibility and which are to be defended if they come under attack” (van Eemeren, 1995, p.150). Argumentation is the attack by the O to the P’s statement and the defense of the P against O’s attack. O demonstrates that in light of the concessions, P’s thesis is not plausible, whereas P tries to prove that it is necessary to accept T. P wins the discussion if O accepts the facts brought by P, and P makes and appropriate Ipse dixisti! (You said so yourself!) remark. Dialogue theory was introduced by Grice (1975) to provide grounds for improving critical thinking and research skills. Grice’s theory approached argumentation as a collaborative conversation between two parties. In this theory, the simplest example of a dialog involves two parties in a conversation where one party asks a question and the other replies. In other words “a dialog is a verbal exchange between two parties, according to some kind of rules, conventions or expectations” (Walton, 2007, p. 20).

9 İşbirlikli (Collaborative) Argümantasyon
Karşılıklı konuşma tabanlı argümantasyonun alt dalıdır Grup içerisinde gerçekleşir Kisilerin bir görevi ifa ederken argüman oluşturmaları ve sunmaları sürecinde olur (Evagorou & Osborne, 2013)

10 FEN EĞİTİMİNDE Öğrencilerin düşüncelerini dışsallaştırması
Alternatif bakış açılarını görme Feni konuşma ve yazma Bilimsel okuryazarlık Eleştirel bakış açısına sahip olma Sosyal becerilerin gelişmesi Bilime karşı olumlu tutum geliştirme

11 AÇIKLAMA (NGSS,2013; Reiser, 2014)
Doğal fenomenlerin iç yüzünü anlama süreci Nedensel mekanizmaları belirleme Bir şeyin anlamını aydınlığa kavuşturma (tanımlama)