Argumentation - Journal: Informal Logic

Early evening (UK) yesterday, I joined a further webinar on argumentation. Through the speaker, and discussion, I was led to a journal

INFORMAL LOGIC

It is in informal logic that I see a role for Hodges' model. The model's structure providing a universal foundation of knowledge domains to be applied in practice. The bonus of this journal, is its being open access, a search revealed the following paper:

Mark Weinstein. Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking. XII.3, Fall 1990.
https://ojs.uwindsor.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/2609

'This paper recommends that the recent concern with informal logic and critical thinking be redirected from its general philosophical focus and towards a greater appreciation of the particulars of practice in the various domains of human understanding. The redirection recommended is prompted by the central role that critical thinking and informal logic can be seen to play in meaningful educational reform, especially at the undergraduate level.' 

'Critical thinking, similarly, should be redirected from concerns typical of philosophers and towards issues and approaches more representative of critical thinking both within and across the wide range of disciplines represented by the course of undergraduate studies.' p.121.

'The sense that there is an internal relationship between arguments, argumentation and domains of knowledge persists despite attempts to show relevant and useful notions of critical thinking that are generally available for instruction and neutral in respect of the disciplines. The resolution of the issues generated by these competing views, requires that reflective practitioners of the disciplines, students of the history of ideas, methodologists and specialists in teaching increasingly engage in the task of generating and organizing the data upon which an informed and adequate notion of critical thinking across the disciplines must be based.' p.125.

I believe that the structure of Hodges' model provides a basis for Weinstein's ordinary argumentation and stylized argumentation.

For me (at present) ordinary argumentation, is 'open' argumentation. That is, without differentiation in (using) Hodges' model. I might (well, I would) have Hodges' model in mind, but choose not to apply it. As per the paper, stylized argumentation is using Hodges' model and doing so in a multidisciplinary manner - within my discipline. 

The problem and challenge for nurses and other health professionals is the need, if:

• person/patient-centred;
• integrated;
• and holistic - having regard for parity of esteem (mind - body)

- not to stray, extend the disciplinary scope, while working within one's professional scope.

In highly effective multidiscioplinary teams that touch on being transdisciplinary (hybrid?), can experienced team members have insight into the stylized argumentation of their colleagues?

Ack. ​Argumentation network of the AMERICAS - https://www.argnet.org/ethics-of-arg.html

Previously: 'critical thinking'