論辯與科學思考
正、反方論辯對否證行為與知識探索的影響
The Effects of argument stand on falsification and
knowledge exploration (NSC 96-2511-S-009-003)
主持人：洪瑞雲
計畫參與人員：呂柏輝 廖家寧 彭思諺 黃翊瑩
余哲銘 周世寶
國立交通大學工業工程與管理學系
1
Introduction
余豈好辯哉，余不得已也！
論辯是西方的傳統， Socrates, Plato, Aristotle…
論辯是獲得真知的一個理性的方法，是科學家的核心工
作之一 (如，論文寫作、發表）
• Argumentation: a rational and dialectical
method to knowledge inquiry .
• Method: openly explain one’s beliefs and
supports for the beliefs and invite
counterarguments and criticisms purposefully
so as to reduce potential pitfalls in one’s beliefs.
2
Argument structure
1. Claim: a position regarding what is the correct
answer to a problem. (曾子殺人, yes！）
2. Explanations: reasons and evidences to support the
claim. （曾子前天跟人吵架，很多人在傳說）
3. Refutations (counterarguments): reasons and
evidences that are inconsistent with the claim.
Shaw, 1996
-- assertion-based, flaws in the knowledge. （曾子不認
識那人）
-- argument-based, logic in inferences. (很多人說不構成證
據）
-- alternative-based: different accounts other than the
claim. （曾子沒殺人，有人在開玩笑）
4. Rebuttals: reasons and evidences to refute the
counterarguments. （曾子脾氣不好，被激怒才失手殺人）
3
Knowledge justified ：殺人的動機
true： 屍體、凶器、現場、
belief: 曾子殺人
reliable method：上述資料如何取
得的？
Scientific knowledge:
knowledge acquired by reliable methods,
objective, evidence
systematic, free of bias
reliable,
replicable
coherent, consistent with other theories and
findings.
4
Epistemological nature of scientific knowledge
1. Knowledge is constructed by scientists and censored
by the scientific community.
Tentative, relative, creative, falsifiable.
2. Complex, rather than simple causal relations.
Usually, there are multiple explanations (causes) of the
observed phenomena.
• 科學方法背後的精神：懷疑主義 （skepticism）
• 科學方法的核心工作：證偽 (falsification）
A  B,
~A  B, alternative accounts (discounting A B)
~B  ~A, falsifying a  A
5
The ability to engage in sophisticated
argumentation is central to doing
science. One must understand that
scientific arguments must incorporate
both theory and evidence, and know
that theory and evidence are two
distinct categories.
研究問題：
論辯對科學思考能力的影響？
6
Difficulty in argumentation:
1. Errors in comprehension of the problem.
2. Unable to seek evidential supports for the claim.
3. Biases in reasoning: my-side bias or one-sided
argument. difficult to think of any
counterarguments.
4. Resource limitation, mental efforts, cost in data
collection
5. Constrained by objectives, e.g., to win the case.
Research hypothesis 1:
Taking an opponent stand in argumentation will
enhance one’s efforts to search for falsifying
evidences, and reduce the persuasion effect of
a claim.
7
Differences between Science and Technology
Science,
Given the observations (data), find the general rule
(pattern) behind the data
 Rule induction, abstraction
Technology,
Given the knowledge (rules), find ways to implement it.
 Realization of abstract knowledge into concrete
artifacts.
Research hypothesis 2.
People argue differently in scientific issues and
technological issues.
8
Method
Argument stand: proponent, opponent, or control
Treatment for argument stand
Proponent stand
Opponent stand
1. give supporting reasons
1. give defying reasons
2. give supporting evidences
3. give defying reasons
2. give defying evidences
3. give supporting reasons
4. give defying evidences
5. rebuttals to 3 & 4
4. give supporting evidences
5. rebuttals to 3 & 4
9
Argumentation Issue (Lin, 2006)
1. science (cause of depression),
2. technology (the efficiency of automated
highway system)
Each issue includes 5 elements in the text:
- a claim made by a college professor
- explanations
- evidences to support the claim,
- refutations (data and explanations)
- rebuttals.
10
Participants: 69 participants (19,
undergraduates; 50, with post-bachelor
education) were randomly assigned to
3 argumentation conditions (proponent,
opponent, control).
11
Procedure
1. Reading the claim and the text.
2. Rating one’s support for the claim, 0-100%
3. Argumentation treatment, argument practice
with assigned stand (proponent, opponent,
control)
4. Rating one’s support for the claim again
5. Reflective essay: writing one’s actually
opinions about the claim.
6. Rating one’s argumentation performance in
step 5.
Science and technology issue in random order
12
Dependent Variables
1. Acceptance of the claim
2. argument structure: supporting arguments,
counterarguments, rebuttals
3. types of arguments: explanations, evidences
4. types of refutation
assertion-based,
argument-based,
alternative-based
5. Falsification: counterarguments + rebuttals
6. Knowledge exploration: new propositions
13
Statistical Analysis
3 (argument stand) x 2 (issue) repeated
measure analysis of variance.
1. Main effects of argument stand and
issue
2. Most of interactions are not
significant
14
Results
Attitude Change
Support for the claim (0-100%)
Issue T > S
• Before, Technology, 72.27; Science, 63.95
• After， Technology, 67.79; Science, 59.12
Argument Stand
opponent, 58.90 < control group, 68.26,p < .05
15
proponent, 63.21 vs. control group, ns.
Knowledge Inquiry
Opponent stand increases knowledge exploration
Argument Stand and Knowledge Exploration
Control Opponent Proponent
p < .05
Total Responses
6.15
7.30
6.54
New Proposition
4.63
6.24
4.98 O>C, O>P
75%
85%
76%
16
Argument Structure
Opponent stand increases counter arguments and
falsification responses
Argument Stand, Argument Structure, and Falsification
Control Opponent Proponent
p < .05
Supporting Arguments
1.88
1.65
2.24
Counterargument
Rebuttala
3.65
0.63
4.57
1.09
3.56 O > P
0.95
Falsification
4.28
5.65
4.31 O> C; O > P
17
Types of Argument
Opponent stand increases the use of evidences.
Proponent stand increases the use of evidences
(experiences of other).
Argument Stand and Types of Argument
Control Opponent Proponent
p < .05
Explanation
2.98
3.20
3.14
Evidence-text
1.20
1.11
1.31
Evidence-others
0.05
0.30
0.05 O>C, O>P
Experience-Self
Experience-others
0.13
0.00
0.09
0.09
0.02
0.31 P > C
18
Types of Refutation
Opponent stand increases the number of
alternative-based refuations
Argument Stand and Types of Refutations
Rebuttal type \ Stand Control Opponent Proponent
Assertion-based
Argument-based, evidencea
Argument-based, logic
Alternative-baseda
1.75
0.53
0.43
1.63
2.15
0.98
0.48
2.20
p < .05
1.95
0.79
0.43
1.26 O > P
19
Knowledge Inquiry
Issue has no effect on knowledge exploration
Issue and Knowledge Exploration
Science
Technology
Total Responses
6.63
6.77
New Proposition
5.16
5.48
p < .05
20
Argument Structure
Technological issue induced more supporting arguments
Science issue induced greater number of rebuttals.
Issue and Argument Structure
Science
Technology
p < .05
Supporting Arg.
1.52
2.31
T > S
Counterargument
4.00
3.77
Rebuttal
1.11
0.69
Falsification
5.09
4.40
S > T
21
Types of Argument
Technological issue relied on explanations in argument.
Science issue induced more evidences.
Issue and Types of Argument
Science
Technology
p < .05
Explanation
1.70
4.52
T>S
Evidence-text
1.23
1.17
Evidence-other
Experience-self
0.13
0.05
0.16
0.11
Experience-others
0.22
0.05
S > T
22
Types of Refutation
Technology relied more on assertion-based refutations.
Science issue relied more on argument-based, and
alternative-based refutations.
Issue and Types of Refutations
Science Technology
p < .05
Assertion-based
0.95
2.97
T>S
Argument-based, evidence
Argument-based, logic
0.91
0.47
0.64
S > T
0.42 At P, S > T
Alternative-based
2.78
0.64
S > T
23
Conclusion 1: Argument stand
Proponent stand is similar to the control group.
Opponent stand leds to:
• Less persuasion effect of a claim
• More Knowledge exploration
• Argument performance
- More falsification
- Search for more evidences
- Search for alternative accounts of data
Mechanism: enhance the use of deliberative
secondary process in thinking and reasoning
and reduce the influence of automated primary
(memory) reasoning process.
24
Conclusion 2: Science vs. technology
Differences in theory of knowledge
Technology, A  B, A  C, A  D….
more supporting arguments for the claim.
more assertion-based refutations
argue by giving explanations
Science,
A  B, C  B, D  B….
argue by evidences
more refutations (skeptical to the claim)
more alternative-based refutations
(intuitive theories).
25
Implications for education
26