Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
10.2.6 The construction of the list As stated above the chart is a series of linked numbered symbols translated through a narrative key list: the chart records the propositions that define all evidence being considered and all interim, PP and UP. The synthetic element is the chart showing the link patterns. 7.10.2.7 The chart The chart is constructed simultaneously with the key listing. We will look at this shortly. 7.10.2.8 Completion of the analysis Again it is necessary to remember that the chart and key list are not the end of the process but the means of engaging in analysis. Nothing in this process should suggest that it is a mechanistic process. In so far as it allows the construction of argument it teaches how an argument is constructed, but it cannot decide how important evidence is. The user has to make this decision, evaluating strength, persuasive value, credibility, or positive or negative effect. It cannot tell the user if the evidence assembled is admissible. The chart orders material and shows relationship and gaps. The chart does not solve problems. If there is a gap the user has to decide how to deal with it at the moment of analysis and argument construction. The human element in handling, locating, ordering, analysing evidence and constructing argument remains an act of knowledge, experience and imagination. Each inference requires an evaluation of its persuasive operation. Then the user needs to come to a view concerning the persuasive effect of the total mass of evidentiary facts. Stephen Toulmin: ‘Logic is concerned with the soundness of claims we makewith the solidity of the grounds we produce to support them, the firmness of the backing we provide for them.’ What is the objective? For a process model it may be solving a diagnostic model or increasing understanding of complex things or for knowledge acquisition. Wigmore’s analytic methods says Schum are ‘a conceptual microscope that allowed me to examine many subtleties in evidence’. The important point is to show alternative conclusions and test them out. Do they, or your counter-argument, stand up? Each inference can lead to the following processes: As we noted earlier in the chapter, an assertion can be met by: • explanation; • denial; • rival assertion. All counter-responses to your argument fall into a category that either: • explains it away; • denies the existence of the evidentiary fact; • offers a new rival evidential fact.
DOI link for 10.2.6 The construction of the list As stated above the chart is a series of linked numbered symbols translated through a narrative key list: the chart records the propositions that define all evidence being considered and all interim, PP and UP. The synthetic element is the chart showing the link patterns. 7.10.2.7 The chart The chart is constructed simultaneously with the key listing. We will look at this shortly. 7.10.2.8 Completion of the analysis Again it is necessary to remember that the chart and key list are not the end of the process but the means of engaging in analysis. Nothing in this process should suggest that it is a mechanistic process. In so far as it allows the construction of argument it teaches how an argument is constructed, but it cannot decide how important evidence is. The user has to make this decision, evaluating strength, persuasive value, credibility, or positive or negative effect. It cannot tell the user if the evidence assembled is admissible. The chart orders material and shows relationship and gaps. The chart does not solve problems. If there is a gap the user has to decide how to deal with it at the moment of analysis and argument construction. The human element in handling, locating, ordering, analysing evidence and constructing argument remains an act of knowledge, experience and imagination. Each inference requires an evaluation of its persuasive operation. Then the user needs to come to a view concerning the persuasive effect of the total mass of evidentiary facts. Stephen Toulmin: ‘Logic is concerned with the soundness of claims we makewith the solidity of the grounds we produce to support them, the firmness of the backing we provide for them.’ What is the objective? For a process model it may be solving a diagnostic model or increasing understanding of complex things or for knowledge acquisition. Wigmore’s analytic methods says Schum are ‘a conceptual microscope that allowed me to examine many subtleties in evidence’. The important point is to show alternative conclusions and test them out. Do they, or your counter-argument, stand up? Each inference can lead to the following processes: As we noted earlier in the chapter, an assertion can be met by: • explanation; • denial; • rival assertion. All counter-responses to your argument fall into a category that either: • explains it away; • denies the existence of the evidentiary fact; • offers a new rival evidential fact.
10.2.6 The construction of the list As stated above the chart is a series of linked numbered symbols translated through a narrative key list: the chart records the propositions that define all evidence being considered and all interim, PP and UP. The synthetic element is the chart showing the link patterns. 7.10.2.7 The chart The chart is constructed simultaneously with the key listing. We will look at this shortly. 7.10.2.8 Completion of the analysis Again it is necessary to remember that the chart and key list are not the end of the process but the means of engaging in analysis. Nothing in this process should suggest that it is a mechanistic process. In so far as it allows the construction of argument it teaches how an argument is constructed, but it cannot decide how important evidence is. The user has to make this decision, evaluating strength, persuasive value, credibility, or positive or negative effect. It cannot tell the user if the evidence assembled is admissible. The chart orders material and shows relationship and gaps. The chart does not solve problems. If there is a gap the user has to decide how to deal with it at the moment of analysis and argument construction. The human element in handling, locating, ordering, analysing evidence and constructing argument remains an act of knowledge, experience and imagination. Each inference requires an evaluation of its persuasive operation. Then the user needs to come to a view concerning the persuasive effect of the total mass of evidentiary facts. Stephen Toulmin: ‘Logic is concerned with the soundness of claims we makewith the solidity of the grounds we produce to support them, the firmness of the backing we provide for them.’ What is the objective? For a process model it may be solving a diagnostic model or increasing understanding of complex things or for knowledge acquisition. Wigmore’s analytic methods says Schum are ‘a conceptual microscope that allowed me to examine many subtleties in evidence’. The important point is to show alternative conclusions and test them out. Do they, or your counter-argument, stand up? Each inference can lead to the following processes: As we noted earlier in the chapter, an assertion can be met by: • explanation; • denial; • rival assertion. All counter-responses to your argument fall into a category that either: • explains it away; • denies the existence of the evidentiary fact; • offers a new rival evidential fact.
ABSTRACT
Again it is necessary to remember that the chart and key list are not the end of the process but the means of engaging in analysis. Nothing in this process should suggest that it is a mechanistic process. In so far as it allows the construction of argument it teaches how an argument is constructed, but it cannot decide how important evidence is. The user has to make this decision, evaluating strength, persuasive value, credibility, or positive or negative effect. It cannot tell the user if the evidence assembled is admissible. The chart orders material and shows relationship and gaps. The chart does not solve problems. If there is a gap the user has to decide how to deal with it at the moment of analysis and argument construction.
