Ateneo - UPO

The course is divided into two parts. The first part introduces the tools for identifying and presenting good arguments. You will learn how to identify the structure of arguments, distinguish between deductive and non-deductive arguments, assess their correctness according to precise normative standards, and develop effective argumentative strategies. Considerable time will be devoted to studying cognitive fallacies and biases. The second part is more seminar-based and will explore artificial intelligence systems for argumentation. This section will include a brief theoretical introduction and practical exercises with such systems.

Canale, D., Ciuni, R:, Frigerio, A., Tuzet, G. “Critical thinking: un’introduzione”. Egea, Milano 2021. (english edition is also accepted: "Critical thinking: an introduction", Bocconi University Press 2022). Lecture slides. One reading from those published by the lecturer on the DIR platform.

The course acts as a kind of 'toolbox' for improving argumentation skills and mastering different styles of reasoning. It aims to refine students' ability to justify a thesis adequately, refute others' theses, identify errors in reasoning and judge alternative theses by critically evaluating the reasons given in support, in both everyday and scientific discourse. The course therefore provides fundamental cultural and scientific methodologies and competencies for developing logical, argumentative and critical reconstruction skills. It also provides techniques for constructing arguments and responding rationally to different types of argument. Finally, the course explores recently developed dialogue systems in artificial intelligence, using what has been learnt in the first part to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.

Interest in reasoning and communication; curiosity about generative artificial intelligence.

Lectures, also with the use of audiovisuals; ; case discussions, work in classroomstructured debates.

Students are invited to follow the updates of the course page published on DIR for supplementary readings as well as for the detailed program of the course. Students with physical disabilities, Learning Disabilities or Special Education Needs can request specific services and tools via the Staff Sviluppo e Coordinamento Carriere e Servizi alle Studentesse e agli Studenti, consulting the University webpage: https://www.uniupo.it/en/services/servicesstudents-physical-or-learning-disabilities Students with disabilities, learning disabilities or special education needs, once they have contacted the University Staff, can refer to the tutor in charge of the course to define the examination modalities, concerning academic aspects.

The oral examination includes questions designed to test your understanding of the topics covered, as well as your ability to critically evaluate arguments and communicative exchanges. You will also be required to write a brief report on your experiences with artificial systems for debate and argumentation, in a manner agreed with the lecturer. Information on how to write the report will be provided on the DIR.

Parte I Che cosa è un argomento La struttura di un argomento Argomenti deduttivi e non deduttivi La valutazione degli argomenti La discussione razionale Fallacie e bias Strategie di replica Argomenti deduttivi: cenni di logica I condizionali controfattuali Ragionamento causale ed esplicativo Gli errori della probabilità L’analogia Parte II AI vecchia e nuova Teoria dell’argomentazione computazionale: cenni Chatbots Un precursore: Miss Debater I sistemi attuali

he course will enable you to Identify the structure of an inductive or deductive argument Determine the conditions under which a concrete deductive argument is valid correct and/or persuasive and an inductive argument is plausible and persuasive Recognise logical fallacies in argumentation and avoid committing them Undertake rational counter-argumentation strategies Evaluate reasoning about causes Evaluate the strength of arguments based on analogy Know the most common statistical and probabilistic errors Reasoning about how the situation might have evolved if different preconditions had been realised (counterfactual reasoning) critically navigate AI systems for argumentation interrogate such systems start critically evaluating their output