Evaluating Science Arguments: Evidence, Uncertainty, and Argument Strength

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 199-212

  Corner, Adam ^a   Hahn, Ulrike ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

argumentation; Bayesian probability; evidence; science; science communication

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CONFLICT; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RESEARCH; SCIENCE; STUDENT; TASK PERFORMANCE; UNCERTAINTY;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BAYES THEOREM; DISSENT AND DISPUTES; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; RESEARCH; SCIENCE; STUDENTS; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; UNCERTAINTY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 71049193497     PISSN: 1076898X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0016533     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Allingham M. Choice theory: A very short introduction (2002), Oxford University Press, Oxford
2. Areni C.S., and Lutz R.J. The role of argument quality in the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Advances in Consumer Research 15 (1988) 197-203
3. Bovens L., and Hartmann S. Bayesian epistemology (2003), Oxford University Press, Oxford
4. Brante T., Fuller S., and Lynch W. Controversial science: From content to contention (1993), New York Press, New York
5. Budescu D.V., Broomell S., and Por H.H. Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Psychological Science 20 (2009) 299-307
6. Collins H.M., and Evans R. Rethinking expertise (2007), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
7. Collins H.M., and Pinch T.J. The Golem: What you should know about science (1993), Cambridge University Press, New York
8. Cooper J., and Fazio R.H. A new look at dissonance theory. In: Berkowitz L. (Ed). Advances in experimental social psychology 17 (1984), Academic Press, New York
9. Corner A., Hahn U., and Oaksford M. The Slippery Slope Argument: Probability, utility and category boundary re-appraisal. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (2006), Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver 1145-1151
10. de Vries N., Ruiter R., and Leegwater Y. Fear appeals in persuasive communication. In: Bartels G., and Nelissen W. (Eds). Marketing for sustainability: Towards transactional policy making (2002), IOS Press, Amsterdam
11. Dickerson C.A., Thibodeau R., Aronson E., and Miller D. Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22 (1992) 841-854
12. Driver R., Newton P., and Osborne J. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education 84 (2000) 287-312
13. Edwards W. Behavioural decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology 12 (1961) 473-498
14. Erduan S., Simon S., and Osborne J. TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education 88 (2004) 915-933
15. Festinger L. A theory of cognitive dissonance (1957), Stanford University Press, Stanford
16. Friedman S.M., Dunwoody S., and Rogers C.L. Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (1999), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
17. Fugelsang J.A., Stein C.B., Green A.E., and Dunbar K.N. Theory and data interactions of the scientific mind: Evidence from the molecular and the cognitive laboratory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 58 (2004) 86-95
18. Green D.W. A mental model theory of informal argument. In: Schaeken W., Vandirendonck A., Shroyens W., and d'Ydewalle G. (Eds). The mental models theory of reasoning: Refinements and extensions (2007), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
19. Green D.W. Persuasion and the contexts of dissuasion: Causal models and informal arguments. Thinking & Reasoning 14 (2008) 28-59
20. Gregory J., and Miller S. Science in public: Communication, culture & credibility (1998), Basic Books, Cambridge, MA
21. Hahn U., and Oaksford M. A Bayesian approach to informal fallacies. Synthese 152 (2006) 207-237
22. Hahn U., and Oaksford M. The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review 114 (2007) 704-732
23. Hahn U., Oaksford M., and Corner A. Circular arguments, begging the question and the formalization of argument strength. Proceedings of AMKCL05-Adaptive Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (2005), Helsinki University, Helsinki
24. Heit E. A Bayesian analysis of some forms of inductive reasoning. In: Oaksford M., and Chater N. (Eds). Rational models of cognition (1998), Oxford University Press, Oxford
25. Hoog N., Stroebe W., and de Wit J.B.F. The impact of Fear Appeals on processing and acceptance of action recommendations. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 31 (2005) 24-33
26. Howson C., and Urbach P. Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach (1996), Open Court, Chicago
27. Irwin A., and Wynne B. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (1996), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
28. Jimenez-Alexandre M.P. Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education 24 (2002) 1171-1190
29. Jimenez-Alexandre M.P., Rodriguez A.B., and Duschl R.A. "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education 84 (2000) 757-792
30. Johnson-Laird P.N. Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness (1983), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
31. Kantola S.J., Syme G.J., and Campbell N.A. Cognitive dissonance and energy conservation. Journal of Applied Psychology 69 (1984) 416-421
32. Keeney R.L., and Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs (1976), New York, Wiley
33. Kemp C., and Tenenbaum J.B. Structured statistical models of inductive reasoning. Psychological Review 116 (2009) 20-58
34. Kirk R.E. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioural sciences (1995), Brooks/Cole, London
35. Knowles J. Norms, naturalism and epistemology (2003), Palgrave Macmillan, New York
36. Kolsto, S. D., Bungum, B., Arneses, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., et al. Science students' critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90, 632-655.
37. Korb K.B. Bayesian informal logic and fallacy. Informal Logic 24 (2004) 41-70
38. Korpan C.A., Bisanz G.L., Bisanz J., and Henderson J.M. Assessing literacy in science: Evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education 81 (1997) 515-532
39. Kortland K. An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. Science Education 80 (1996) 673-689
40. Kuhn D., Shaw V., and Felton M. Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition & Instruction 15 (1997) 287-315
41. Kuhn T.S. The structure of scientific revolutions (1970), The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
42. Lagnado D.A., and Harvey N. The impact of discredited evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15 (2008) 1166-1173
43. Laplace, P. S. (1951). A philosophical essay on probabilities (F. W. Truscott & F. L. Emory, Trans.). New York: Dover Publications. (Original work published 1814)
44. Lorenzoni I., Nicholson-Cole S., and Whitmarsh L. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 445-459
45. Lorenzoni I., and Pidgeon N.F. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change 77 (2006) 73-95
46. Nelson J.D. Finding useful questions: On Bayesian diagnosticity, probability, impact and information gain. Psychological Review 112 (2005) 979-999
47. Norris S.P., Phillips L.M., and Korpan C.A. University students' interpretation of media reports of science and its relationship to background knowledge, interest and reading difficulty. Public Understanding of Science 12 (2003) 123-145
48. Oaksford M., and Chater N. Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning (2007), Oxford University Press, Oxford
49. Oaksford M., and Hahn U. A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 58 (2004) 75-85
50. O'Keefe D.J., and Jackson S. Argument quality and persuasive effects: A review of current approaches. In: Jackson S. (Ed). Argumentation and values: Proceedings of the ninth Alta conference on argumentation (1995), Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA 88-92
51. Osherson D., Smith E.E., Wilkie O., Lòpez A., and Shafir E. Category based induction. Psychological Review 97 (1990) 185-200
52. Patronis T., Potari D., and Spiliotopolou V. Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education 21 (1999) 745-754
53. Patt A. Assessing model-based and conflict-based uncertainty. Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 37-46
54. Patt A.G., and Schrag D.P. Using specified language to describe risk and probability. Climatic Change 61 (2003) 17-30
55. Pennington N., and Hastie R. Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (1986) 242-258
56. Petty R.E., and Cacioppo J.T. Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change (1986), Springer-Verlag, New York
57. Petty R.E., and Wegener D.T. Thought systems, argument quality, and persuasion. In: Wyer R.S., and Srull T.K. (Eds). Advances in social cognition 4 (1991), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ 147-161
58. Pidgeon N., Kasperson R.E., and Slovic P. The social amplification of risk (2003), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
59. Pidgeon N.F., and Rogers-Hayden T. Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or "upstream engagement"?. Health, Risk and Society 9 (2007) 191-210
60. Pollack H.N. Uncertain science... uncertain world (2005), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
61. Popper K.R. The logic of scientific discovery (1959), Hutchison, London
62. Ratcliffe M. Evaluation of abilities in interpreting media reports of scientific research. International Journal of Science Education 21 (1999) 1085-1099
63. Rips L.J. Similarity, typicality and categorisation. In: Vosinadou S., and Ortony A. (Eds). Similarity and analogical reasoning (1989), Cambridge University Press, New York
64. Sadler T.D. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (2004) 513-536
65. Savage L.J. The foundations of statistics (1954), Wiley, New York
66. Schultz P.W., Nolan J.M., Cialdini R.B., Goldstein N.J., and Griskevicius V. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science 18 (2007) 429-434
67. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2002). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
68. Stewart N., Chater N., Stott H.P., and Reimers S. Prospect relativity: How choice options influence decision under risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132 (2003) 23-46
69. Takao A.Y., and Kelly G.J. Assessment of evidence in university students' scientific writing. Science & Education 12 (2003) 341-363
70. Tentori K., Crupi V., Bonini N., and Osherson D. Comparison of confirmation measures. Cognition 103 (2007) 107-119
71. Thøgersen J. A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 93-103
72. Toulmin S. The uses of argument (1958), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
73. van Eemeren F.H., and Grootendorst R. A systematic theory of argumentation-the pragma-dialectical approach (2004), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
74. van Gelder T.J., Bissett M., and Cumming G. Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 58 (2004) 142-152
75. von Aufschaiter C., Erduran S., Osborne J., and Simon S. Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45 (2008) 101-131
76. Woods J., Irvine A., and Walton D. Critical thinking, logic & the fallacies (2004), Prentice Hall, Toronto
77. Zehr S. Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science 9 (2000) 85-103