Combining Explanation and Argumentation in Dialogue

Explanation and argumentation can be used together in such a way that evidence, in the form of arguments, is used to support explanations. In a hybrid system, the interlocking of argument and explanation compounds the problem of how to differentiate between them. The distinction is imperative if we want to avoid the mistake of treating something as fallacious while it is not. Furthermore, the two forms of reasoning may influence dialogue protocol and strategy. In this paper a basis for solving the problem is proposed using a dialogue model where the context of the dialogue is used to distinguish argument from explanation

Translating Charles S. Peirce’s Letters: A Creative and Cooperative Experience

In this article we wish to share the work in which the Group of Peirce Studies of the University of Navarra has been involved since 2007: the study of a very interesting part of the extensive correspondence of Charles S. Peirce, specifically, his European letters. Peirce wrote some of these letters over the course of his five trips to Europe (between 1870 and 1883), and wrote others to the many European scientists and intellectuals he communicated with over the course of his life. The translation of those letters has been an excellent practical example of the creative and abductive nature of translation, as well as of the cooperative character of research. Translating Peirce's letters has allowed us a deep study of some theoretical aspects, and at the same time it has permitted us to work creatively and cooperatively to enrich the common vision of this scientist and philosopher

Enabling autistic sociality: unrealised potentials in two-sided social interaction

Research on autism, which is defined as a life-long developmental disability affecting social interaction, has focussed predominantly on how autistic individuals perceive and interact with others with less emphasis on the perspectives of their interactional partners. Yet autistic viewpoints have highlighted how other people are part of a two-way breakdown in interaction originating from differences between people rather than the deficit of any one individual, a phenomenon known as the double empathy problem. A gap therefore exists in the literature in terms of understanding how autistic sociality (i.e. the range of social opportunities possible for a given individual on the spectrum) is shaped by different interactional partners. This thesis examines the double empathy problem in three interactional contexts. Study 1 examines relationships between autistic people and their family members through focussing on perspective-taking, the ability to impute mental states to others. In light of prior research where autistic abilities have been assessed using abstract scenarios, Study 1 implements a two-way measure of perspective-taking which considers both sides of 22 real-life relationships (n=44) consisting of autistic adults and their family members, to understand how autistic people are seen by familiar others as well as vice versa. It uses a mixed-methods approach, where members of each dyad were individually asked about 12 topics, providing quantitative scores and qualitative explanation of their rating of Self, their rating of their partner, and their predicted rating by their partner. Comparison of perspectives provided a means for detecting misunderstandings and their underlying rationale. The contribution of Study 1 is that it shows perspective-taking is two-sided: family members can be biased in underestimating the perspective-taking of their autistic relatives, while autistic adults are aware of being negatively viewed despite disagreeing with such views. Study 2 examines interactions between autistic adults (n=30) partaking in a naturally occurring activity of video-gaming at a charity. It is a qualitative study using participant observation, with each conversational turn systematically rated in terms of coherence, affect and symmetry to identify the key features of neurodivergent intersubjectivity, the process through which autistic people build shared understanding in their own non-normative ways. The contribution of Study 2 is to identify two forms of neurodivergent intersubjectivity which enable shared understanding to be achieved, but which have traditionally been viewed as undesirable from a normative social viewpoint: a generous assumption of common ground that, when understood, lead to rapid rapport, and, when not understood, resulted in potentially disruptive utterances; and a low demand for coordination that ameliorated many challenges associated with disruptive turns. Study 3 examines interactions involving lay people (n=256) who believe they are interacting with an autistic partner through an online collaborative game, when in fact they are playing with an intelligent virtual agent (IVA) who behaves the same way for all participants. Its contribution is methodological as it develops a new application for simulating interactions in experimental research called Dyad3D. Study 3 uses Dyad3D to explore how disclosure of an autism diagnosis by the IVA affects social perception and social behaviour in comparison to a disclosure of dyslexia and a condition where there is no diagnostic disclosure. Combined with a post-game questionnaire, Study 3 triangulates self-reported (quantitative rating scales and qualitative explanation) and behavioural measures (quantitative scores of actions within the game) to understand the interplay of positive and negative discrimination elicited through using the label of autism. It highlights that diagnostic disclosure of autism leads to significant positive bias in social perception when compared to a disclosure of dyslexia or a no disclosure condition; yet participants are not as helpful towards the autistic IVA as they think they are, indicating a potential bias in helping behaviour. The thesis takes an abductive methodological approach which integrates with a wider call for a more participatory model of research in the study of autism. Abduction is a form of reasoning which involves the iterative development of a hypothesis that holds the best explanatory scope for the underlying phenomena observed. It is inherently aligned with a participatory model of research because abduction involves the ongoing exploration of ideas that may originate from multiple sources (i.e. interactions with autistic people as well as research outputs). Taking a more holistic approach to the development of knowledge with autistic people which recognises the legitimacy of different claims to knowledge is important, because prior research in the field has often failed to critically reflect on researcherparticipant positionality and the principals underlying the development of research agenda. For this reason, the thesis details the participatory activities which surround and interconnect with the development of the three empirical studies. Overall the thesis contributes to understanding autistic sociality as a dynamic, interactionally shaped process. It reasons that autistic people have unrealised social potential, both in terms of imagining other perspectives (Study 1) and coordinating with others (Study 2). However, such social potential may not be easily recognised by other non-autistic people who may be biased in their assumptions about autism (Study 1 and Study 3). Consequently, the evidence presented in this thesis helps to explain some of the processes that underscore the double empathy problems reported in literature, including poor mental health (because autistic people are aware that they are misunderstood by others, see Study 1), employment prospects (because autistic social potential is under-recognised by others, see Study 1 and 3), and quality of life (because neurotypical standards of communication are not compatible with neurodivergent forms of intersubjectivity, see Study 2). The thesis therefore makes suggestions for how we design enabling environments which are sensitive to the dynamic factors that can enable autistic sociality to flourish

Where is the Warfare? The Impact of Sola Scriptura on Science and Religion Dialogue

I have two aims with the publication of this thesis. The first is to contribute to the recent scholarly work that seeks to discredit the popular, yet fallacious, warfare model of science and religion. A nuanced investigation shows that the warfare evident in popular discourse cannot easily be attributed to a conflict between the essence of science and religion. Rather “science” and “religion” are interpreted as something else entirely. The New Atheists equate science with scientism, and religion is often associated with the Biblical inerrantism of many Protestant Christians. Both ideologies are grounded in an empiricist epistemological framework founded by Luther’s declaration of sola scriptura. The resulting fundamentalist feedback loop is the heart of the true warfare, a conflict between scientism and inerrantism

Dialogue Understanding in a Logic of Action and Belief

Abstract In recent work, Langley et al. (2014) introduced UMBRA, a system for plan and dialogue understanding. The program applies a form of abductive inference to generate explanations incrementally from relational descriptions of observed behavior and knowledge in the form of rules. Although UM-BRA's creators described the system architecture, knowledge, and inferences, along with experimental studies of its operation, they did not provide a formalization of its structures or processes. In this paper, we analyze both aspects of the architecture in terms of the Situation Calculus-a classical logic for reasoning about dynamical systems-and give a specification of the inference task the system performs. After this, we state some properties of this formalization that are desirable for the task of incremental dialogue understanding. We conclude by discussing related work and describing our plans for additional research

The Social Constructs of Natural World Heritage: An Ethnographic Investigation into the Conflicts of a Danish UNESCO Destination

This paper will investigate the conflicts that can arise during destination development following a World Heritage inscription. Previous literature mentions that conflicts arise, but focuses on a more managerial perspective, and fails to account for the characteristics of those conflicts. The aim of the paper is to account for the characteristics of the conflicts that arise, by trying to grasp how various stakeholders in the destination development process have different understandings of the destination, and how these understandings are undergoing negotiation after the destination has received the World Heritage inscription. The paper is thus focusing on Consumer Culture Theory and Cultural Geography, thereby adding a sociocultural perspective to the strongly managerial perspective on destination development. The paper is based on an ethnographic field study of the Nature World Heritage destination Stevns Klint, Denmark. After interviews with various stakeholders about the development processes that the area had undergone since being inscribed the UNESCO World Heritage label, it became clear the locals of Stevns embedded meaning into the landscape, thus the term appropriating space becomes relevant. According to this result, conflict arises in Stevns from differentiating meaning embeddings, but mainly because certain development initiatives contradict the commonly accepted identities of various areas along the cliff. Which leads us into the second conflict, which is based on the power structures that arise in commodification processes. Only those in charge of destination development get to manifest the aforementioned appropriations of space, creating politics of representation. From these results, it becomes clear that there is a need for a sociocultural perspective on destination development in order to understand why conflicts happen in recently inscribed World Heritage destinations

The use of authentic teaching methods in tourism higher education: A case study of Level 6 university students

© 2023 University of Hertfordshire.Tourism, Hospitality, and Events (THE) higher education has often been criticised for graduates who are poorly prepared for realities of the workforce. Authentic teaching is one method in which it is argued instructors can balance theory with practical application. This study used a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) philosophy to engage Level 6 university students who had experienced an authentic teaching method. The survey was conducted between 22nd February 2023 - 19th April 2023. The results showed that the majority of students felt authentic teaching was beneficial to their understanding of course content, whereas 100% of students enjoyed the task and would like to see more similar tasks applied in the future, indicating the overall benefit of authentic teaching.Non peer reviewe