Dydaktyka

Katarzyna Budzyïż½ska
Dydaktyka
Zmieniony 07.06.2011.
Rok akademicki 2010/11Semestr letni PONIEDZIAŁEK
9.45-11.15 WM: Argumentation, dialogue and persuasion (Sala 310, Wóycickiego budynek WNHiS i
WFCh, kod budynku: BW)
11.30-13.00 Elementy logiki z ćwiczeniami, Ćwiczenia (CW), grupa nr 1 (Sala 1913, Wóycickiego 19, kod
budynku: W19)
13.15-14.45 Elementy logiki z ćwiczeniami, Ćwiczenia (CW), grupa nr 2 (Sala 1913, Wóycickiego 19, kod
budynku: W19)
15.00-16.30 Konsultacje (Sala 203, Wóycickiego budynek WNHiS i WFCh, kod budynku: BW)
PIĄTEK
9.45-11.15 Elementy logiki z ćwiczeniami, Ćwiczenia (CW), grupa nr 4 (Sala 1927, Wóycickiego 19, kod
budynku: W19)
11.30-13.00 Elementy logiki z ćwiczeniami, Wykład (WYK) (Sala 1908, Wóycickiego 19, kod budynku:
W19)
13.15-14.45 Elementy logiki z ćwiczeniami, Ćwiczenia (CW), grupa nr 3 (Sala 1927, Wóycickiego 19, kod
budynku: W19) PROGRAM -- Elementy logiki z ćwiczeniami. UWAGA: Egzamin odbędzie się 13 czerwca
o godzinie 15, sala 310, Wóycickiego budynek WNHiS i WFCh (kod budynku: BW)Egzamin poprawkowy
odbędzie się 12 września o godzinie 15, sala 310, Wóycickiego budynek WNHiS i WFCh (kod budynku:
BW) CZĘŚĆ I – LOGIKA ZDAŃ
1 zajęcia (18.II +ćw. 14.II) WYKŁAD: Wprowadzenie -- syntaktyka i semantyka wyrażeń językowych
ĆWICZENIA: Syntaktyka wyrażeń językowych
2 zajęcia (25.II +ćw. 21.II) WYKŁAD: Metoda zero-jedynkowa i wynikanie logiczne
ĆWICZENIA: Syntaktyka, semantyka i formalizacja wyrażeń językowych
3 zajęcia (4.III +ćw. 28.II) WYKŁAD: Rodzaje rozumowań i poprawność dedukcji
ĆWICZENIA: Metoda zero-jedynkowa i wynikanie logiczne
4 zajęcia (11. III +ćw. 7.III) WYKŁAD: Tezy KRZ
ĆWICZENIA: Wynikanie logiczne i poprawność dedukcji
CZĘŚĆ II -- ARGUMENTACJA
5 zajęcia (18. III +ćw. 14. III) WYKŁAD: Argumentacja i metoda diagramów
ĆWICZENIA: Tezy KRZ
6 zajęcia (25. III +ćw. 21. III) WYKŁAD: kolokwium -- materiał z wykładów 1-4 i ćwiczeń 1-5 (max. 30
pkt)
ĆWICZENIA: Identyfikacja i rekonstrukcja argumentacji
7 zajęcia (1.IV +ćw. 28. III) WYKŁAD: Schematy argumentacji oparte na treści
ĆWICZENIA: Metoda diagramów
8 zajęcia (8. IV +ćw. 4.IV) WYKŁAD: Interpersonalne schematy argumentacji
ĆWICZENIA: Schematy argumentacji oparte na treści
9 zajęcia (15. IV +ćw. 11. IV) WYKŁAD: Analiza argumentacji w Araucaria-PL
ĆWICZENIA: Interpersonalne schematy argumentacji
CZĘŚĆ III – TEORIA ZBIORÓW, RELACJI I LOGIKA NAZW
10 zajęcia (29. IV +ćw. 18. IV) WYKŁAD: kolokwium -- materiał z wykładów 5, 7, 8, 9 i z ćwiczeń 6-9
(max. 10 pkt)
ĆWICZENIA: Działania na zbiorach i relacje między zbiorami
11 zajęcia (6.V +ćw. 9. V) WYKŁAD: Dziedzina, przeciwdziedzina, konwers relacji
ĆWICZENIA: Dziedzina, przeciwdziedzina, konwers relacjiDodatkowe zajęcia (za ćwiczenia w dniach 3.VI i
6.VI) 10.V, godz. 9.45-11.15 (gr. I i IV) oraz 11.30-13.00 (gr. II i III), sala 1905 ĆWICZENIA:
Powtórzenie do egzaminu i omówienie zadania analizy argumentacji w Araucaria-PL
12 zajęcia (13. V +ćw. 16. V) WYKŁAD: Własności relacji
ĆWICZENIA: Własności relacji
13 zajęcia (20. V +ćw. 23. V) WYKŁAD: Logika nazw
ĆWICZENIA: Własności relacji
14 zajęcia (27. V +ćw. 30.V) Święto UKSW (zajęcia odwołane)
15 zajęcia (3. VI) WYKŁAD: kolokwium: -- materiał z wykładów 11-14 i ćwiczeń 10-14 (max. 30
pkt) MATERIAŁY DO ZAJĘĆ -- Elementy logiki z ćwiczeniami.
- Materiały do części I: można pobrać tutaj
- Materiały do części II: można pobrać tutaj
- Materiały do części III: można pobrać tutaj
WARUNKI ZALICZENIA -- Elementy logiki z ćwiczeniami.
http://argumentacja.pdg.pl/budzynska
Kreator PDF
Utworzono 4 March, 2017, 06:08
Katarzyna Budzyïż½ska
ĆWICZENIA
Na zaliczenie składa się:
- Obecność (uwaga!: nieobecność usprawiedliwiona jest traktowana jako nieobecność)
- Kartkówki (uwaga!: nie ma możliwości poprawiania kartkówek) Skala ocen:
- Zaliczone ćwiczenia: nie więcej niż dwie nieobecności na ćwiczeniach i nie więcej niż dwie niezaliczone
kartkówki
- Niezaliczone ćwiczenia: więcej niż dwie nieobecności na ćwiczeniach lub więcej niż dwie niezaliczone
kartkówki
WYKŁAD
Na ocenę składają się:
- pisemny egzamin (70 pkt)
- analiza argumentacji w Araucaria-PL (30pkt)Skala ocen:
- Dst: 60-68
- Dst+: 68-76
- Db: 76-84
- Db+: 84-92
- Bdb: 92-100 CALENDAR AND TASKS -- Lecture: Argumentation, dialogue and persuasion UWAGA:
Egzamin odbędzie się 20 czerwca o godzinie 15, sala 310, Wóycickiego budynek WNHiS i WFCh (kod
budynku: BW)Egzamin poprawkowy odbędzie się 12 września o godzinie 15, sala 310, Wóycickiego
budynek WNHiS i WFCh (kod budynku: BW) 1 lecture (14.II): General Introduction. History, Geography,
Basic Notions and Topics.
- Douglas Walton, What is Reasoning? What is an Argument? Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 87, 1990. pp.
399-419.
- D.Hitchcock, Informal logic and the concept of argument, Handbook of the Philosophy of Science,
Elsevier 5 (2006), 101–129.
SECTION I: FUNDAMENTALS OF ARGUMENTATION THEORY
2 lecture (21.II): Introduction to Section I
3 lecture (28.II and 7.III): Reading Group “Argumentation Structure”
Literature:
- Chapter 5.2 from: Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, J.A. Blair, R.H.
Johnson, E.C.W. Krabbe, C. Plantin, D.N. Walton, C.A. Willard, J. Woods, and D. Zarefsky (1996).
Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary
Developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 139-149
- Chapter 1.1 from: Philippe Besnard, Anthony Hunter (2008) Elements of Argumentation, MIT Press, pp.
2-6Questions:
- Describe the structure of argumentation according to Toulmin
- What are the types of premises in Toulmin’s model and what are the differences between them?
- What is the difference between the classical logic account and Toulmin’s account?
- Compare rebutting and undercutting arguments 4 lecture (7.III and 28.III): Reading Group
“Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions”
Literature:
- chapter III from: Douglas Walton (2006) Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, pp. 84-132.Questions:
- Summarise the main types of Ad Hominem arguments
- Describe the similarities and differences between Argument from Expert Opinion and Argument from
Position to Know
- Explain the mechanism of Argument from Commitment
- What are the roles of critical questions in argumentation schemes?5 lecture (21.III): Reading Group
“DEFLOG. A Logic for Argumentation”
Literature:
- Verheij, B. (2005) Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin's scheme. Argumentation: 19 (3), 347-371.
Questions:
- In what ways do Verheij’s systems preserve Toulmin’s original concepts? In what ways
do Verheij’s systems extend or differ from Toulmin?
- What different analyses of the concept of rebuttal does Verheij provide, and how do these compare
with Toulmin’s original concept, and with the notions of undercutting and rebutting that you met
in lecture 3?
- How are warrant and rebuttal formalized? Discuss how Verheij represents Toulmin’s example of
http://argumentacja.pdg.pl/budzynska
Kreator PDF
Utworzono 4 March, 2017, 06:08
Katarzyna Budzyïż½ska
Bermuda in DEFLOG.
- What is meant by the term, ‘reinstatement’?6 lecture (28. III): Practical work
The tasks:
T1. Work through Exercise 3.9 in Walton, Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation, p132.
T2. Label or create the data, claim and warrant for each of the following arguments. You may have to
infer some parts of the argument. (Make your choice of warrant as general as you can for the example
given.).
- The scenes of mass graves, the tales of "ethnic cleansing," and the stories of calculated rape of Muslim
women indicate that significant violations of human rights occurred in Bosnia.
- If additional lighting has reduced crime on campus at Knox, it will do the same here.
- Anyone who studies harder will improve his or her grades. That's why I think you should increase your
study time be a significant amount.
- John always seems to find a way to sit near Mary. I think he likes her.
- I polled the students in my lecture on argumentation class and 12 out of 20 voted for Komorowski. I
think this shows the President has the majority of the college age vote.
- Research consistently shows that communication skills are the most important abilities in determining
success on the job.T3. Use the Toulmin model to identify the main parts of the argument below.
Daily Aztec 2/6/01 BENJAMIN ABEL
McCain: a republican with no mandate
[1] John McCain is strange, but lately he's been acting like agent Mulder of the X-Files. A United Press
International article has McCain talking to freshmen members of the House about campaign-finance
reform, and "hoping to get their support before the system corrupts them." You know, the "system."
[2] We've almost killed big tobacco, so I'm not sure there's a "cigarette-smoking man" hanging around;
but those corporate guys always have their connections and their big money, which happily take politics
away from the little guys.
[3] To give politics back to the little guys, John McCain has teamed up with Democrat Russ Feingold to
reform campaign financing. The McCain-Feingold bill seeks to outlaw unregulated political donations and
limit privately funded "issue advertisements," which support issues but not the parent candidates.
[4] McCain took America by storm during the primaries -- which he lost. Well before losing, however, he
amassed thousands of followers ("McCainiacs") and became a media favorite. People loved him because
he worked his way from Vietnam to the primaries. He was doing it for America: reject him, reject his
patriotism.
[5] His populist straight-talk included a promise that "he would give government back to the American
people," or something of the sort. So after McCain was vanquished and his followers dispersed and
downtrodden, he promised he'd keep fighting.
[6] A few months later, when Bush became president, McCain began acting strangely.
[7] As if he had earned a mandate to govern, McCain began saying things like "I campaigned on it
(campaign finance reform), and I promised millions of Americans." And, interestingly, Gore promised
Americans bigger government, but Gore didn't win the election. But he promised us!
[8] McCain, I assume, wants only to make campaigns more fair for all Americans. Fairness meaning
regulation of the large sums of money used to "steer" a candidate. But McCain-Feingold is just
wrongheaded.
[9] First, McCain wouldn't want to limit the democratic pressures a candidate is exposed to. The problem
is that money is speech, and folks may speak as they see fit. Sure, rich people have a louder voice than
poor people, but rich people will always have a louder voice than poor people. This includes the rich leftwingers, like Alec Baldwin, Stephen Spielberg and Ted Turner, who have celebrity clout as well.
[10] Second, imagine the bill passes and primary season comes. One of the candidates is America's most
popular and loved movie star. All the contributions are regulated, as are the ads, but the movie star is so
well-known that a few seconds a day on CNN is all he (or she) needs. Not to mention all of the star's
movies, which are shown frequently on television. If a TV channel wants to show the movies, does that
count as "an illegal contribution?"
[11] Third, campaign financing has been reformed and reformed (again) for 20 years, and yet somebody
always finds a way to contribute something. It's like tax evasion: no matter how many regulations there
are, people will cheat the system somehow.
[12] Reporting all campaign donations is far more reasonable, and will give opposing parties plenty more
ammo than will any rich person's donation. "Look, he's taking money from communists! I told you he was
a Stalinist!" The media eat this stuff up.
[13] So the campaign finance-reforming lotus-eaters fall back on their "only possible explanation" for the
impasse: corruption. Campaign finance reform is so obviously good and infallible that, if not for the
"corrupt fat cats," our system would be flawless. It's kind of like the parents who try to get their kids to
eat broccoli.
[14] The broccoli is obviously good; the kid is just being stubborn.
http://argumentacja.pdg.pl/budzynska
Kreator PDF
Utworzono 4 March, 2017, 06:08
Katarzyna Budzyïż½ska
[15] But I think we all know what the real problem is.
SECTION II: DIALOGICAL AND PERSUASIVE ASPECTS OF ARGUMENTATION
7 lecture (28. III): Introduction to Section II
8 lecture (4.IV): Reading Group “Dialogue Taxonomy”
Literature:
- Douglas Walton and Fabrizio Macagno (2007) Types of Dialogue, Dialectical Relevance and Textual
Congruity, Anthropology & Philosophy: International Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 2007, pp. 101-119
- Prakken H. (2006) Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21, pp.
163-188. Sections: 1-7, i.e. only pages: 1-12 Questions:
- Summarise Walton’s basic typology of dialogues, including the primary means by which they
can be distinguished.
- What are the similarities and differences between ‘shifts’ and ‘embeddings’
amongst dialogues of different types?
- What techniques are available for assessing relevance in dialogue?
- Compare and contrast Walton’s ‘dialectical profiles’ with Prakken’s
‘reply structures’.
- What are the basic components of systems for dialogue games? 9 lecture (11. IV): Reading Group
“Argumentation in Persuasion Dialogue”
Literature:
- Reed, C.A., Budzynska, K. (2011) "How dialogues create arguments" in van Eemeren, F.H. et al. (eds)
Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA
2010), Sic Sat, AmsterdamQuestions:
- What are the types of arguments? What are similarities and differences between them?
- What is meant by illocutionary force?
- At what level of abstraction does argumentation exist? Explain why.
- How do moves in dialogues create inferences that hold between propositions?10 lecture (11. IV additional meeting: 15-16.30, room 203): Practical work
The task:
- In groups of two using table 1 from Prakken’s paper (p. 9) play a dialogue game according to
the protocol. Start with a claim such as “Poland should leave EU” or “Abortion should
be legal” and use the moves that are allowed by the game to conduct the argument. Keep track of
how the dialogue develops move by move on the piece of paper. At each move, keep a record of how the
commitment stores are updated. Build a reply structure diagram.
SECTION III: COMPUTATIONAL MODELS OF ARGUMENT
11 lecture (18.IV): Introduction to Section III
12 lecture (9.V) Reading Group “Software tools supporting argument analysis”
Literature:
- Reed, C.A. & Rowe, G.W.A (2004) Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and
Representation, International Journal of AI Tools, 13 (4), pp961-980.
- Reed, C., Walton, D. & Macagno, F. (2007) Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial
intelligence, Knowledge Engineering Review, 22 (1), pp87-109. Questions:
- To what extent do argument diagramming tools such as Araucaria support the theoretical model
proposed by Toulmin that you have met in lecture 3? Do they include any simplifications or extensions?
- What is the role of argument diagramming in the development of the field of argumentation theory?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of using a software tool to perform argument analysis?
- What basic argument structures are visualized by the argument diagramming method?13 lecture (23.
V): Reading Group “Ontologies for argument”
Literature:
- Rahwan, I., Zablith, F. & Reed, C. (2007) Laying the Foundations for a World Wide Argument Web,
Artificial Intelligence, 171, pp. 897-921. Questions:
- Why is there currently a large international consortium trying to develop an ‘interchange
format’ for argumentation? What is meant by an ‘interchange format’? How is it
http://argumentacja.pdg.pl/budzynska
Kreator PDF
Utworzono 4 March, 2017, 06:08
Katarzyna Budzyïż½ska
similar to, and different from, an ‘ontology’?
- What is meant by the ‘Upper Ontology’ of the Argument Interchange Format?
Summarise the AIF Upper Ontology. Contrast it with the Forms Ontology.
- To what extent do you think that Araucaria (that you met in lecture 12) would be able to use the AIF?
What challenges would face such interaction, and what would be the potential benefits?14 lecture (23. Vadditional meeting: 15-16.30, room 203): Practical work
The task:
Pick an extract in English of about 100 words that involves an argument. Newspaper opinion pieces offer
good examples: you could try looking at articles from The Guardian, a popular British newspaper, or the
New Poland Express, an English-language magazine in Poland
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree
- http://www.newpolandexpress.pl/npe_columns.php and analyse its argumentative structure using
Araucaria. Try to identify argumentation schemes where you can. 15 lecture (18.VI) Practical session
(ArgDiaP)
ADDITIONAL LITERATURE
D. Walton, Argumentation Theory: A Very Short Introduction, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, ed.
Iyad Rahwan and Guillermo Simari,Berlin, Springer, 2009, 1-24
MARKS -- Lecture: Argumentation, dialogue and persuasion
Maximal: 100 points
-
Written Exam: 67 points
Reading group: 7x3 points = 21 points (3: Exceptional; 2: Good; 1: Weak; 0:Poor)
Practical work: 3x3 points = 9 points (3: Exceptional; 2: Good; 1: Weak; 0:Poor)
ArgDiaP, 18th June (http://argumentacja.pdg.pl/): 3 points
(Additional points for attendance in ArgDiaP on 26th Feb: 3 points)Mark scale
-
Dst: 60-68
Dst+: 68-76
Db: 76-84
Db+: 84-92
Bdb: 92-100
http://argumentacja.pdg.pl/budzynska
Kreator PDF
Utworzono 4 March, 2017, 06:08