¿Para qué sirve argumentar?: Problematizando teórica y empíricamente el valor y la función de la argumentación

The Argumentation in the University Training from a Humanistic Perspective

“…The different theories of argumentation start from the idea that arguing becomes a natural function of the human being, from which a certain type of normativity arises. However, different approaches and positions have debated this assertion, deploying two problems in the field of the normativity of the functionality and argumentation research (Santibáñez, 2014).…”

“…In this order of ideas, argumentative instrumentalism mentions that dialogical goals can have an instrumental nature in front of extra-dialogical goals, which comprises some methods within the argumentation as the own decision to argue and the specific movements that are selected in the process itself that are affected by the extra-dialogical goals of the arguer and presents the following characteristics (Santibáñez, 2014): 1 -that the dialogical sub-goals have an instrumental character at the end of the dialogue, 2 -which at the same time is subordinated to the extra-dialogical goal, since it overcomes the immediate dialogue; 3-movements do not always respond to explicit extradialogical goals, these movements can be instrumental to other goals different from the argumentative, even contrary to those that motivated him in the first instance.…”

“…This includes the direct and opportunity costs, understood as the alternatives that were not chosen. On the other hand, the danger refers to the collateral effects resulting from argumentation as another variable in the negative utility (Santibáñez, 2014).…”

“…In their studies they conclude that the estimation of costs when arguing is a substantial issue to be considered, including on the evaluation of benefits and dangers, since the former are immediate and safe, however, the benefits and dangers will be uncertain and deferred. Consequently, the argument can be seen as an optimal strategy, when costs are controlled in the present, otherwise they will become the most relevant variable (Santibáñez, 2014).…”

Generosos y empáticos o ¿pragmáticos y utilitaristas?: los argumentos del adulto mayor chileno frente a un dilema social

“…El mainstream de la teoría de la argumentación no ha producido conocimiento sobre lo que ocurre con la competencia argumentativa del adulto mayor. Sí la hay respecto de otros grupos etarios: niños pequeños, jóvenes universitarios y adultos (van Eemeren, Garssen & Meuffels, 2009;Hample & Anagondahalli, 2015;Mercier, 2016;Migdalek, Santibáñez & Rosemberg, 2014;Santibáñez, 2014;Shär, 2011Shär, , 2017. Los estudios de diferentes comunidades de hablantes según un criterio de edad -criterio que es una de las formas para situar el problema del desarrollo y manifestación de facultades cognitivas-, debieran ser capaces de despejar: 1) qué grado de complejidad tiene la práctica argumentativa del adulto mayor (por ejemplo, cuántas razones se esgrimen en un punto de vista, qué tipos de esquemas argumentativos son utilizados, cuán relevantes o suficientes son las razones para apoyar el punto de vista ); 2) qué función le da a esta posibilidad lingüística el adulto mayor y qué actitudes comunicativas, teóricamente entendidas como marcos argumentativos, están asociadas en el momento en que manifiesta un acto de habla argumentativo (cierta tendencia a la cooperación, o a la agresividad verbal, por ejemplo).…”