ARGUING

The aim of this Minor is to offer basic epistemological and linguistic-philosophical tools that can be used in particular by non philosophy students and applied to different domains - from specialised fields of analysis to everyday life.

The aim of this module is to understand how we can and do construct arguments – by means of what epistemological tools, logical steps and models of reasoning – and what we construct arguments for – in view of what purpose, use and application. By the end of this module the students will have acquired basic competence in using relevant philosophical terminology in analysing argumentative strategies and an analytic/critical capacity to assess the validity of a variety of arguments in a range of contexts of applications.

- basic knowledge of main models of logical inference
- basic understanding of their applicability in the context of both everyday and scientific reasoning
- basic knowledge of informal logical tools for the evaluation of practical arguments (i.e. arguments in the context of everyday language, social and political debates, etc.)
- basic knowledge of rhetorical argumentation and logic of persuasion, with particular reference to scientific discourse

knowledge of the fields under discussion is not required nor assumed

1. The validity of arguments: validity, inference, and coherence
2. Logic in action: informal logic, practical arguments
3. Persuading with arguments: rethorics; metaphorical arguments
4. Persuading in science: examples of rhetorical argumentation
5. Reasoning with numbers: the use of statistics; the logic of quantification

All the reading material below (required for the final exam) will be made available on Moodle:

Toulmin, S, The Uses of Arguments, updated edition CUP 2003. Introduction; ch.2.
Walton, D., Informal Logic (CUP 1989), capitoli 4,6,7.
Montuschi, E. Le Metafore Scientifiche, cap 1, cap.2, cap.3, cap.4
Feyerabend, P. Against Method, cap.6
Porter, R., Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life, Princeton University Press 1995, ch 2
Broome, J. ‘The Ethics of Climate Change’, www.SciAm 2008
Lynch, M.-McNally, R. ‘Science, “common sense” and evidence: a legal controversy about the public understanding of science’, Public Underst.Sci. 12 (2003)
Montuschi, E. Oggettività ed Evidenza Scientifica, cap 5.3, pp. 137-147.

Final assessment is by a two-hours written examination. The exam will consist of three questions, each addressing an issue arisen from the topics discussed during the course. The grade received for the course depends on exam performance only. However, keeping up with the reading assigned for each lectures and, where possible, participating in discussion are the most effective way to prepare for exams. It is also an effective way for students to monitor their strengths and weaknesses, and to discover and remedy gaps in their understanding, all in good time ahead of exams.

lectures; seminar-type discussion

written