A Doctor’s Argumentation by Authority as a Strategic Manoeuvre
نویسنده
چکیده
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.
منابع مشابه
Authority and Mathematical Argumentation 1 Running head: AUTHORITY AND MATHEMATICAL ARGUMENTS The Effect of Authority on the Persuasiveness of Mathematical Arguments
Three experiments are reported which investigate the extent to which an authority figure influences the level of persuasion undergraduate students and research-active mathematicians invest in mathematical arguments. We demonstrate that, in some situations, both students and researchers rate arguments as being more persuasive when they are associated with an expert mathematician than when the au...
متن کاملAn authority degree-based evaluation strategy for abstract argumentation frameworks
Abstract argumentation allows to determine in an easy, formal way which claims survive in a conflicting dispute. It works by considering claims as abstract entities, and expressing attack relationships among them. However, this level of expressiveness prevents abstract argumentation systems from being directly applied to reasoning processes where the context is relevant. An outstanding example ...
متن کاملPhysician - patient argumentation and communication , comparing
This article discusses the application of theories of argumentation and communication to the field of medicine. Based on a literature review, the authors compare Toulmin’s model, pragmadialectics, and the work of Todd and Fisher, derived from American sociolinguistics. These approaches were selected because they belong to the pragmatic field of language. The main results were: pragma-dialectics...
متن کاملUnderstanding the Role of Computer-Supported Argumentation in the Strategic Change Process
In this paper the authors develop a conceptual framework for appreciating the use of computer-supported argumentation systems in organisational settings undergoing strategic change. More specifically, the authors concentrate on the role of computer-supported argumentation as catalyst for compensating distortions in the outcome of change, originating from the organisation’s power regime. The fra...
متن کاملOn Strategic Argument Selection in Structured Argumentation Systems
This paper deals with strategical issues of arguing agents in a multi-agent setting. We investigate different scenarios of such argumentation games that differ in the protocol used for argumentation, i. e. direct, synchronous, and dialectical argumentation protocols, the awareness that agents have on other agents beliefs, and different settings for the preferences of agents. We give a thorough ...
متن کامل