Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:02:10.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding, evaluating, and producing arguments: Training is necessary for reasoning skills

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2011

Maralee Harrell
Maralee Harrell
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. mharrell@cmu.eduhttp://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/faculty-harrell.php
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This commentary suggests that the general population has much less reasoning skill than is claimed by Mercier & Sperber (M&S). In particular, many studies suggest that the skills of understanding, evaluating, and producing arguments are generally poor in the population of people who have not had specific training.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 80 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailenson, J. N. & Rips, L. J. (1996) Informal reasoning and burden of proof. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10(7):S3–16.3.0.CO;2-7>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrell, M. (2006) Diagrams that really are worth ten thousand words: Using argument diagrams to teach critical thinking skills. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, p. 2501. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Harrell, M. (2008) No computer program required: Even pencil-and-paper argument mapping improves critical thinking skills. Teaching Philosophy 31:351–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrell, M. (2011) Argument diagramming and critical thinking in introductory philosophy. Higher Education Research and Development 30(3):371–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuman, Y., Weinstock, M. P. & Glasner, A. (2006) The effect of contextual factors on the judgment of informal reasoning fallacies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 59:411–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ricco, R. B. (2003) The macrostructure of informal arguments: A proposed model and analysis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 56(6):1021–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rips, L. J. (2002) Circular reasoning. Cognitive Science 26(6):767–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sá, W. C., Kelley, C. N., Ho, C. & Stanovich, K. E. (2005) Thinking about personal theories: Individual differences in the coordination of theory and evidence. Personality and Individual Differences 38(5):1149–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, V. F. (1996) The cognitive processes in informal reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning 2:51–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, V. A., Evans, J. St. B. T. & Handley, S. J. (2005b) Persuading and dissuading by conditional argument. Journal of Memory and Language 53(2):238–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twardy, C. R. (2004) Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy 27:95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Gelder, T. (2005) Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching 53:41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Gelder, T, Bissett, M. & Cumming, G. (2004) Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 58:142–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinstock, M., Neuman, Y. & Tabak, I. (2004) Missing the point or missing the norms? Epistemological norms as predictors of students' ability to identify fallacious arguments. Contemporary Educational Psychology 29(1):77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar