Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Two Faces of Scientific Argumentation: Applications to Global Climate Change

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation

Abstract

Argument plays a central role in science. One side of scientific argumentation is descriptive and explanatory, debating competing theories about reality. A second side is prescriptive, involving socio-scientific debates about how humans should adapt to or change the world around them. In this chapter, we argue that it is important to engage science students in both types of discourse. Socio-scientific discussions are often more meaningful and engaging to students; however, such discussions need to be informed by basic science. In this chapter, we first describe an analytic framework, Walton’s dialogue theory, involving both (a) argument schemes (which specify various types of argument) and (b) critical questions for evaluating the schemes. We then explore the two faces of scientific argumentation through an analysis of a seventh-grade discussion on global climate change and how critical questions were used to stimulate the discussion. Finally, we explain how various argument schemes guided our development of an educational computer game (“Losing the Lake”) to promote awareness of environmental sustainability. The importance of taking a broad (multisided) view of scientific argumentation is described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Angell, R. B. (1964). Reasoning and logic. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antholis, W., & Talbott, S. (2010). Fast forward: Ethics and politics in the age of global warming. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begley, S. (2007, December 31/2008, January 7). Learning to love climate ‘adaptation.’ Newsweek, 151(1), 84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brean, H. (2009, April 14). Drought lingers: Lake sinking near 1965 level. Las Vegas Review-Journal. Retrieved from http://www.lvrj.com/news/42949442.html

  • Broad, W., & Wade, N. (1982). Betrayers of the truth. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cognition & Instruction, 15, 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 230–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, D C: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Avila, P. Jr., & Torres, B. B. (2010). Introducing undergraduate students to science. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 38(2), 70–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. P. (1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perrett-Clermont, A. (1976). Social interaction and cognitive development: Further evidence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 56, 245–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 109–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doran, P. T., & Kendall Zimmerman, M. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos Trans. AGU, 90(3). doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159–175). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Literacy Council and the National Science Teachers Association. (2007). Global climate change: Resources for environmental literacy. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Southerland (Series Ed.), S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Volume Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47–69). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Providence, RI: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G., & van de Sande, C. (2007). Perspectival understanding of conceptions and conceptual growth in interaction. Educational Psychologist, 42, 9–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastings, A. C. (1963). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffert, M. I., Caldeira, K., Benford, G., Criswell, D. R., Green, C., Herzog, H., et al. (2002). Advanced technology paths to global climate stability: Energy for a greenhouse planet. Science, 28, 981–987. doi: 10.1126/science.1072357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Southerland (Series Ed.), S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Volume Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith, W., & Rehg, W. (2008). Argumentation in science: The cross-fertilization of argumentation theory and science studies. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 211–239). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, K. (2009, August 16). Water and our economy. If we don’t develop the resources, we’re at risk. Las Vegas Review-Journal. Retrieved from http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/53343277.html

  • King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krupp, F., & Horn, M. (2008). Earth: The sequel: The race to reinvent energy and stop global warming. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skill. Child Development, 74, 1245–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1387–1408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., & Light, A. (2009). Global warming’s six Americas: An audience segmentation analysis. Center for America Progress. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/6americas.html

  • Lindzen, R. S. (2009, December 6). Portending doom. Las Vegas Review Journal. (Reprinted from “The climate science isn’t settled,” The Wall Street Journal.) Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

  • Mayr, E. (1991). One long argument: Charles Darwin and the genesis of modern evolutionary thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, S. C., & Dilling, L. (2007). Toward the tipping point. In S. C. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change (pp. 491–516). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • National Climatic Data Center (2008). Weather/climate events. Retrieved from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climateresearch.html

  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2001). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (2009). Solving the puzzle: Researching the impacts of climate change around the world. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/news/nsf09202/nsf09202.pdf

  • Nemet, G. F., and Kammen, D. M. (2007). U.S. energy R&D: Declining investment, increasing need, and the feasibility of expansion. Energy Policy, 35, 746–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Gowan, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). How introverts versus extroverts approach classroom argumentative discussions. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 183–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M. (2008a). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M. (2008b). Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument/counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 549–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist , 46, 84–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences , 20, 443–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. M. (2008). The role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1977–1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., Winsor, D. L., Aqui, Y. M., & Poliquin, A. M. (2007). Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 479–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obama announces climate change deal with China, other nations. (2009, December 18). CNN Politics. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/18/obama.copenhagen/index.html

  • Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2009). Fewer Americans see solid evidence of global warming. Modest support for “cap and trade” policy. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming

  • Schwarz, B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right … If they argue together! Cognition & Instruction, 18, 461–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sismondo, S. (2008). Science and technology studies and an engaged program. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 13–31). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sisolak, S. (2009, August 19). Drought requires community to pursue all of its options. Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved from http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/aug/19/drought-requires-community-pursue-all-its-options/

  • Snowpocolypse vs. global warming. (2010, February 10). True/Slant. Retrieved from http://politifi.com/news/Snowpocalypse-Vs-Global-Warming-272306.html

  • Solomon, M. (2008). STS and social epistemology of science. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 241–258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunal, C. S. (2006). Argumentation and the science standards: The intersection of scientific and historical reasoning and inquiry. In D. W. Sunal & E. L. Wright (Eds.), The impact of state and national standards on K-12 science teaching (pp. 257–300). Greenwich, CN: IAP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira, R. (2010, June 14). Public opinion snapshot: The public believes global warming is happening and is ready for action. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/public_and_warming.html

  • Walton, D. N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3, 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (1995). A pragmatic theory of fallacy. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Will, G. F. (2010, February 21). Climate science tantrums. Jewish World Review. Retrieved from http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will022110.php3

  • Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wintour, P. (2009, August 8). UN climate change deal needs more sacrifices by West, John Prescott warns. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/08/copenhagen-kyoto-climate-change-talks

  • Yale Project on Climate Change/George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. (2010). Climate change in the American mind: Americans climate change beliefs, attitudes, policy preferences, and actions. Retrieved from http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/files/Climate_Change_in_the_American_Mind.pdf

  • Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2006). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97–116). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 74–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA

    E. Michael Nussbaum, Gale M. Sinatra & Marissa C. Owens

Authors
  1. E. Michael Nussbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gale M. Sinatra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marissa C. Owens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Michael Nussbaum .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Bahrain Teachers College, Manama, Bahrain

    Myint Swe Khine

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nussbaum, E.M., Sinatra, G.M., Owens, M.C. (2012). The Two Faces of Scientific Argumentation: Applications to Global Climate Change. In: Khine, M. (eds) Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation