Teaching argumentation theory to doctors

2014 ◽  
pp. 66-80
Author(s):  
Sara Rubinelli ◽  
Claudia Zanini
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory

scholarly journals Using argumentation theory to identify the challenges of shared decision-making when the doctor and the patient have a difference of opinion

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia A. Zanini ◽  
Sara Rubinelli
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Communication Skills ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Ideal Model ◽  
Difference Of Opinion ◽  
The Ideal

This paper aims to identify the challenges in the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) when the doctor and the patient have a difference of opinion. It analyses the preconditions of the resolution of this difference of opinion by using an analytical and normative framework known in the field of argumentation theory as the ideal model of critical discussion. This analysis highlights the communication skills and attitudes that both doctors and patients must apply in a dispute resolution-oriented communication. Questions arise over the methods of empowerment of doctors and patients in these skills and attitudes as the preconditions of SDM. Overall, the paper highlights aspects in which research is needed to design appropriate programmes of training, education and support in order to equip doctors and patients with the means to successfully engage in shared decision-making.

scholarly journals Development of an integrated flexible transport systems platform for rural areas using argumentation theory

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 62-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nagendra R. Velaga ◽  
Nicolás D. Rotstein ◽  
Nir Oren ◽  
John D. Nelson ◽  
Timothy J. Norman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rural Areas ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Transport Systems

Argumentation Theory for Education

2017 ◽  
pp. 56-92
Author(s):  
Baruch B. Schwarz ◽  
Michael J. Baker
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory

scholarly journals The Epistemic Value of Deep Disagreements

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirk Lougheed
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Epistemic Value ◽  
Peer Disagreement ◽  
Epistemology Of Disagreement ◽  
Epistemic Peer ◽  
Deep Disagreement ◽  
The Face ◽  
Deep Disagreements

In the epistemology of disagreement literature an underdeveloped argument defending the claim that an agent need not conciliate when she becomes aware of epistemic peer disagreement is based on the idea that there are epistemic benefits to be gained from disagreement. Such benefits are unobtainable if an agent conciliates in the face of peer disagreement. I argue that there are good reasons to embrace this line of argument at least in inquiry-related contexts. In argumentation theory a deep disagreement occurs when there is a disagreement between fundamental frameworks. According to Robert J. Fogelin disagreements between fundamental frameworks are not susceptible to rational resolution. Instead of evaluating this claim I argue that deep disagreements can lead to epistemic benefits, at least when inquiry is in view. Whether rational resolution is possible in cases of deep disagreements, their existence turns out to be epistemically beneficial. I conclude by examining whether this line of argument can be taken beyond research-related contexts.Dans la littérature sur l'épistémologie du désaccord, un argument sous-développé pour une approche non conciliatoire se fonde sur l'idée qu'il y a des bénéfices épistémiques à tirer du désaccord. De tels bénéfices sont impossibles à obtenir si un agent se concilie face au désaccord avec ses pairs, du moins dans les contextes liés à la recherche. Dans la théorie de l'argumentation, un désaccord profond se produit lorsqu'il y a un désaccord entre des propositions cadres. Je soutiens que des désaccords profonds peuvent mener à des avantages épistémiques, du moins dans le contexte de la recherche. Que la résolution rationnelle soit ou non possible en cas de désaccord profond, leur existence s'avère être bénéfique sur le plan épistémologique.

scholarly journals Rooting Gilbert's Multi-Modal Argumentation in Jung, and Its Extension to Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 383-421
Author(s):  
Marko Novak
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Psychology ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Legal Argumentation ◽  
Psychological Types

This paper discusses how an understanding of Jung's psychological types is important for the relevance of Gilbert's multi-modal argumentation theory. Moreover, it highlights how the types have been confirmed by contemporary neuroscience and cognitive psychology. Based on Gilbert's approach, I extend multi-modal argumentation to the area of legal argumentation. It seems that when we leave behind the traditional fortress of “logical” legal argumentation, we "discover" alternate modes (such as the intuitive, emotional, and sensory) that have always been present, concealed in the theoretically underestimated rhetorical skills of arguers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document