FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W126574536> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W126574536 abstract "The categorization of evidence through an inverse model is a preliminary attempt to organize the manner in which the ordinary language user perceives the use of evidence. While discussions on the nature of evidence have an important place in the realm of the theoretician and methodologist, this model attempts to explain how naive observers interpret and make sense of their world. The model begins with the assumption that individuals interpret events within a relatively stable frame of references. Ordinary language users treat as evidence those interpretations of phenomena which allow them to create meaningful classifications or apply them. The inferential process of connecting evidence with the interpretation of phenomena requires acceptance of several assumptions: evidence is inferred; evidence requiring less inference is preferred to evidence which requires greater inference; the frame of reference through which evidence is interpreted is subjective; and the frame of reference in relatively stable, even though it is subject to change. Three levels of evidence (in order of least inference required to most required) emerge for categorizing evidence types through the mndel: (1) evidence only requiring a perceptual inference; (2) evidence requiring both a perceptual inference and at least one level of logical inference by the observer; and (3) evidence requiring multiple levels of logical inference without a direct perceptual inference by the observer. Future elaboration of the model will explain the heuristic rules employed. (Contains 16 references.) (RS) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** An Inference of Evidence Craig A. Dudczak Syracuse University U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 01,:ce of Educahonal Research and ImOr00emen1 EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) lit'/:'1his document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY e TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).Eastern Communication Association Washington, DC April 1994 Running Head: Inference 9 BEST COPY AVAILABLE An Inference of Evidence As scholars concerned with questions of whether our observations of phenomena warrant a particular interpretation, we construct theories, methodologies, and other indicators of what constitutes acceptable evidence. Most of the discussion about what constitutes standards of (or for) acceptable evidence occurs in discussions of theory or paradigms (e.g., B. Fisher 1977; Scheidel 1977; Delia & Grossberg 1977)1 In these paradigm-based discussions of evidence, it is generally acknowledged that what passes for evidence or data is inevitably tied to the logics by which they are discovered and verified. (W. Fisher 1994). While these discussions on the nature of evidence have an important place in the realm of the theoretician and methodologist, they usually do not capture either the meaning or use of evidence for the ordinary person. What I would like to articulate here is a conception of evidence that is appropriate to ordinary language.use in the field of argumentation. This conception of evidence does not displace paradigm-based understandings of how observational data become interpreted and used as evidence. Rather, it attempts to explain how naive observers interpret and make sense of their world. In developing this perspective, I begin with a brief aescription of what I have labelled an Inverse Inference Model of evidence, followed by an explanation of its underlying assumptions. The implications of this model to traditional evidence categories will conclude this manuscript. In a subsequent manuscript I will elaborate a set of cognitive heuristic principles" @default.
• W126574536 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W126574536 creator A5087805875 @default.
• W126574536 date "1994-04-01" @default.
• W126574536 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W126574536 title "An Inverse Inference Model of Evidence." @default.
• W126574536 hasPublicationYear "1994" @default.
• W126574536 type Work @default.
• W126574536 sameAs 126574536 @default.
• W126574536 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W126574536 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W126574536 hasAuthorship W126574536A5087805875 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C166052673 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C173801870 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C204321447 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C26760741 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C2776214188 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C2780704645 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W126574536 hasConcept C94124525 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C111472728 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C121332964 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C138885662 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C154945302 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C15744967 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C166052673 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C169760540 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C173801870 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C180747234 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C199360897 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C204321447 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C26760741 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C2776214188 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C2780704645 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C41008148 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C527412718 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C62520636 @default.
• W126574536 hasConceptScore W126574536C94124525 @default.
• W126574536 hasLocation W1265745361 @default.
• W126574536 hasOpenAccess W126574536 @default.
• W126574536 hasPrimaryLocation W1265745361 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W1523139627 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W1789559822 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W1955305629 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W2006422841 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W2062383554 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W2095794271 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W2170253413 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W2481732655 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W2482215125 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W2494745525 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W2741339472 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W2765423738 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W2767235511 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W2912415803 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W3200842307 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W39585879 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W51087542 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W571516809 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W588713500 @default.
• W126574536 hasRelatedWork W2937781309 @default.
• W126574536 isParatext "false" @default.
• W126574536 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W126574536 magId "126574536" @default.
• W126574536 workType "article" @default.