For this project, you will work in groups of three (please email me and let me know who you're working with). Each of you will will create a thread and begin by writing a 350-500 word argument about any topic. You should incorporate ideas about argumentation that we've discussed throughout the quarter, but need not describe those explicitly. Your argument should include at least two good citations in either APA or MLA format. You will then write a 250-350 word critique of each of your group member's arguments (as comments to their original threads). This critique should incorporate some of the ideas about argumentation that we described over the course of the term. Once you've received a critique from each group member, you will revise your original argument, incorporating their suggestions (again, as a comment on your original thread).

Here are the dealines:

- Original post: Sunday, June 4th
- First critique: Wednesday, June 7th
- Second critique: Sunday, June 10th
- Revised Argument: Wednesday, June 14th

This week we're going to continue working with Toulmin's argumentation model in addition to considering some other models. In class on Thursday, we will be constructing arguments in small groups based short prompts that I will assign at the beginning of class. Here are a few readings for the week:

- This short article looks at the use of Toulmin's Model in the context of composition.
- This paper examines some of the issues with representational schemes like Toulmin's.
- This paper reviews and evaluates Toulmin's model in addition to two others: Walton's dialogue theory and the Bayesian approach to argumentation.

Over the past 6 weeks, we’ve discussed proof, justification, and argumen- tation in mathematics, the sciences, and the social sciences. The goal for this writing assignment is to develop and refine your own perspective on proof, justification, and argumentation based on the course readings, our discussions, your exploration of scientific and social-scientific phenomena, and, of course, the views you’ve brought with you to this course. What I’m looking for is a well thought out comparison of the modes of proof and justification that we’ve covered, backed by the literature we’ve read and any other sources you find useful. I want to know what you think about the ideas we’ve discussed, and I want your ideas to be expressed clearly and to be substantiated.

Detailed instructions for the midterm assignment can be found here.

This week we're going to hear from the rest of the group on natural phenomena about which our scientific understanding has changed. If you didn't get a chance to look at any of the reading/watching material from last week, please do so for Thursday. Additionally, do a little research on the peer review process and its role in your field(s) of interest. Here are a few articles to start with check out (nothing too dense or lengthy).

Do some light research on the evolution of our understanding about some natural phenomenon and be prepared to
give us a brief introduction and lead a discussion. This can be large or small in scale, from any branch of science,
and from any point(s) in history. A quick example I gave in class was the model of the solar
system. Ptolemy's geocentric model envisioned the planets as moving on small spheres, which in turn moved on larger circles. On the road
to our current understanding of the solar system, Copernicus and then Keplar provided significant updates
to the Ptolomaic Model. This is up for grabs.

Having thought a bit more about this, you don't necessarily have to pick a topic about which our understanding changed over time -
you can also pick a current controversial topic in the sciences. E.g. Climate change, nutrition, etc.

Work individually or with a partner. So that we're not repeating ourselves, fill in
this table with your name(s) and a brief description of what you'll be discussing.

Use the following readings/videos to help guide your discussion.

To provide some frameworks within which we can situate our discussion this week, read/watch the following:

- This summary of Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery, in which he puts forth the notion of falsification.
- Here's a short video on Popper.
- This article on Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions which radically changed the way we think about scientific progress.
- Here's super short video on Kuhn.
- Models for Modeling: This is a lengthy piece by Michael Weisberg from UPenn on modeling in which he tells the story of the Reber plan to dam the SF Bay.

In this week's readings and discussion we will continue to explore the nature and practice of mathematical proof.

- Imre Lakatos wrote an essay/play, titled Proofs and Refutation, in which a teacher and several students discuss Euler's Formula. Read part one of that essay here.

- What proof schemes can you pick out in Lakatos' characters?
- What are some of the key features of the process of continual revision that are playing out in Proofs and Refutations?
- Are you less convinced by proof by contradiction than by direct proof?
- Can you think of, or construct, an example of an argument by contradiction?

This week's readings and discussion focus on mathematical proof and logic. Don't panic, you're reading
about math and logic, not doing any math! Yet...

You don't have to read these in any particular order.

- This paper by Harel and Sowder defines proof schemes, which we'll use to situate our discussion on proof. You're welcome to read the whole thing if you're interested in learning more about mathematical proof, but definitely read the section on Proof Schemes that goes from page 5 to the top of page 10.
- This is a pretty interesting read from Aeon magazine on logic. Before you get started, think about what logic is and what its function is or ought to be.
- If you want to dig real deep,
this
book has a great article titled
__Mathematical Domains: Social Constructs?__You'll have to sign into you Drexel account to get to it.

Here's a running list of the readings we have used throughout the term...