Biases and fallacies in the interpretation of argumentative processes in the Critical Thinking Program of the National School (UNAM)
Abstract
This article aims to highlight how cognitive biases influence the perception and interpretation of fallacies in argumentative processes on the assumption that, if biases can be detected and there is conscious training, it is feasible to correct these situations in the interpretation. This article intends to answer the question: How do biases affect the interpretation of fallacies in students? The results from a test inserted in an academic project during four semesters are discussed and compared among group of students enrolled in different degrees at Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores, Unidad Morelia, from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Additionally, these results are compared with the results obtained for the same test by a group of lawyers, all active in their professional field, with the intention of recognizing shared traits with a population that is not associated on a daily basis with the university academic context. The results show that for the interlocutor to detect fallacies in argumentative writing, it is necessary to make biases visible, otherwise, fallacies would be left unnoticed. Additional research seems to be necessary at different levels to further contribute to the interpretation of argumentative texts from its constituting elements such as biases, heuristics, argumentative strategies and fallacies.
Downloads
References
Ariely, D. (2008) Predictably Irrational. The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions. New York: Harper Collins.
Caro, M. T. y González, M. (2018). Didáctica de la argumentación en el comentario de textos. Madrid: Síntesis.
Bardone, E. (2011). Fallacies and Cognition: The Rationale of Being Fallacious. En E. Bardone Seeking Chances: From Biased Rationality to Distributed Cognition (pp. 1-19). Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Carlino, P. (2005). Escribir, leer y aprender en la Universidad. Una introducción a la alfabetización académica. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Nueva York: Heath and Company.
Evans, Jonathan. (2003). In Two Minds: Dual-Process Accounts of Reasoning. Trends in cognitive sciences. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012
Evans, J (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu.Rev.Psychol, 59, 255-278.
Evans JStBT & Frankish, K. (Eds.). (2009). In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Nueva York, Estados Unidos: Oxford University Press.
Greenwald, A. G.; Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102 (1), 4–27.
Govind Persad, (2014). When, and How, Should Cognitive Bias Matter to Law. Law & Ineq (31). Recuperado de http://scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq/vol32/iss1/2
Gregory, M. & Tetlock, P. E. (2006) Antidiscrimination Law and the Perils of Mindreading, Ohio State Law Journal, 67, 1023-1121.
Haselton MG, Nettle D, Andrews PW (2005). The evolution of cognitive bias. En D.M. Buss (Ed.) The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. (pp. 724-746) Hoboken: John Wiley &Sons Inc.
Hirose, M., Narro, J., Trigo, F., de la Fuente, J., Oyama, K., Pérez, E. (2015). La Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores. Un proyecto educativo para el siglo XXI. México: UNAM.
Hooks, B. (2010). Teaching critical thinking: Practical wisdom. Londres: Routledge.
Jenicek, M. & Hitchcock, D. L. (2004). Evidence Based Practice: Logic and Critical Thinking in Medicine. Chicago: Amer Medical Assn.
Kahneman D. & Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(4) pp. 263-291
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. Nueva York:Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D; Tversky, A (1972) Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology (3) doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3
Lipman, M. (1988). Critical Thinking— What Can It Be? Educational Leadership, 46 (1), pp. 38–43.
López, J. A. y García; L. M. (2019) Argumentar en la universidad: un proceso más allá del producto textual. Punto CU Norte, 9, 110-126.
Marafioti, R. (2003). Los patrones de la argumentación. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Biblos.
Moon, J. A. (2008). Critical Thinking: An Exploration of Theory and Practice. Londres, Inglaterra: Routledge.
Morales, T. (2016). Manual para maestros que lloran por las noches. Libro de siembra de culturas de paz y buen vivir a partir de prácticas que no parecen arte (… aunque probablemente lo sean…). Guanajuato: Secretaría de Educación, Gobierno del Estado de Guanajuato.
Morewedge, C. K., & Kahneman, D. (2010). Associative processes in intuitive judgment. Trends in cognitive sciences, 14(10), 435–440. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.07.004
Paul, R. y Elder, L. (2006). The Miniature Guide to The Foundation for Critical Thinking. Recuperado de http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/index-of-articles/1021/
Plantin, C. y Muñoz, N. (2011) El hacer argumentativo. Buenos Aires: Biblos
Serafini, M.T. (2007) Cómo se escribe. Barcelona: Paidós.
Stengers, I. (2009). Au temps des catastrophes. Résister à la barbarie qui vient. Paris: Laécouverte.
Thaler, R. H. y Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Londres: Penguin Books.
Toulmin, S. (2003). Los usos de la argumentación. Barcelona, España: Península
Tversky, A & Kahneman, D, Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, New Series, 185 (4157), 1124-1131.
Van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R. y Henkemas, F. (2006) Argumentación: análisis, evaluación, presentación. Buenos Aires: Biblos.
Van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R. y Henkemas, F. (2002) Argumentación, comunicación y falacias. Santiago: Ediciones de la Universidad Católica de Chile.
Villalobos, José. (2007). La enseñanza de la escritura a nivel universitario: fundamentos teóricos y actividades prácticas basados en la teoría sociocultural. Educere, 11(36), 61-71. Recuperado de http://ve.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1316-49102007000100009&lng=es&tlng=es.
Wang X, Simons F & Brédart, S. (2001) Social cues and verbal framing in risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14 (1), 1-15. doi: 10.1002/1099-771(200101)14:1<1::AID-BDM361>3.0.CO;2-N
Copyright (c) 2021 Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Original work publishes in this journal is subject to the following terms:
1. Murcia University Press (the publishing house) holds the copyright of the publishes work, and favours and allows their reutilization under the use license stated in point 2.
© Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Murcia, 2015
2. Work is published in the electronic edition under a license (Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0 España (legal text). They can be copied, used, disseminated, transmitted and publicly presented, as long as: i) authorship and original publication source is acknowledged (journal, publishing house and URL of the work); ii) are not used for commercial purposes; iii) the existence and specifications of this use license is stated.
3. Conditions for self-archive. Authors are allowed and encouraged to disseminate electronically the pre-pint (before review) and/or post-print (accepted for publication) versions of their work before their publication since that favours earlier circulation and dissemination resulting in an increased chance for the authors to be cited and for the work to reach a bigger share of the academic community. Colour: RoMEO: green.
