4 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2022
  2. hackmd.io hackmd.io
    Argument quality and fallacies - HackMD
    1
    1. cheyennechooi 17 Jan 2022

      Argument quality and fallacies. (n.d.). HackMD. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://hackmd.io/@scibehC19vax/argumentquality

      is:article lang:en arguments fallacies argument quality norms standards self-contradiction inconsistency claim evidence vaccination debate factual error vaccine hesitancy ignorance source reliability ad hominem argument bias slippery slope causation statistical fallacies Simpson's paradox vaccine data
    Visit annotations in context

    Tags

    Annotators

    URL

    hackmd.io/@scibehC19vax/argumentquality
  3. Sep 2020
  4. ojs.uwindsor.ca ojs.uwindsor.ca
    A Normative Theory of Argument Strength
    1
    1. ErikStuchly 02 Sep 2020

      Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2006). A Normative Theory of Argument Strength. Informal Logic, 26(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v26i1.428

      is:article lang:en normative theory argument quality argument strength importance evidence fallacy Bayesian characteristics critical evaluation argument
    Visit annotations in context

    Tags

    Annotators

    URL

    ojs.uwindsor.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/428
  5. Jul 2020
  6. critical-analysis.org critical-analysis.org
    Project background – Critical Analysis Project
    1
    1. ErikStuchly 10 Jul 2020

      Project background – Critical Analysis Project. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2020, from http://critical-analysis.org/project-background/

      is:webpage lang:en critical evaluation analysis argumentation communication complexity standard argument quality rationality research debate
    Visit annotations in context

    Tags

    Annotators

    URL

    critical-analysis.org/project-background/
  7. www.sciencedirect.com www.sciencedirect.com
    Argument Quality in Real World Argumentation
    1
    1. ErikStuchly 07 Jul 2020

      Argument Quality in Real World Argumentation. (2020). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(5), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.01.004

      is:article lang:en argument quality argumentation real world psychology philosophy classical logic Bayesian framework standard evaluation guidance probability
    Visit annotations in context

    Tags

    Annotators

    URL

    sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661320300206