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'
orcid.org/0000-0002-0192-8965
00505-5/asset/d4552419-3a69-4f64-90c1-1f22af9e4c28/main.assets/fx1.jpg){kind=link}