Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación

Review: Desacuerdos profundos: debates y aproximaciones.

Ignacio Madroñal — 2025-06-02

The book Desacuerdos profundos: debates y exploraciones [Deep disagreements: debates and approaches] offers a comprehensive analysis of deep disagreements from various philosophical perspectives. Through eight chapters, it examines their nature, their epistemic implications, and their relation to argumentation and rationality. The authors discuss pessimistic and optimistic approaches to the resolution of these kinds of disputes, present theoretical models and analyze specific case studies. The book not only systematizes the existing literature on the topic, but also provides conceptual and methodological tools for future research, consolidating itself as a key reference in the Hispanic American field.

What do they teach and how do they do it? Argumentation in three school texts

María Elena Villanueva Chaucas — 2025-06-02

Despite the everyday practice of argumentation (present in all areas of our daily life) and its importance in current times -invaded by fake news, half-truths and unargued opinions-, its teaching in Peruvian schools is still insufficient. Therefore, the present research aims to evaluate the didactics of argumentation in school textbooks of three national publishers. This research adopts a qualitative approach and uses documentary analysis as a method. The corpus is made up of Communication books aimed at students in the fifth grade of Secondary Education, published between 2016 and 2022 in Peru. The results obtained reveal a) a simplification of the argumentative theory, evidenced by the omission of important components such as the subargument and counterargument; b) discordance between the argumentative theory provided and the examples of discursive genres requested, and c) limitations of the didactic sequences designed for the development of argumentative competence.

Pragma-dialectics and NLP Applied to Mediation

Victorina Bastante Soler — 2025-06-02

This article explores the intersection of Pragma-dialectics, Experimental Philosophy, and Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) applied to the context of mediation. We emphasize the importance of understanding and managing intuitions, perceptions, and moral judgments to facilitate critical dialogue and conflict resolution. We analyze the negative side effects that can arise from biases stemming from intuitions and perceptions, as well as the relevance of cognitive tools such as NLP to address these challenges and promote the mediator’s neutrality.

Development of an argumentative strategie among teachers of a school in Bogotá

Yamal Esteban Nasif Contreras — 2025-06-02

This research article aims to present the development of a argumentative strategy designed to improve the argumentation processes among teachers of a public school in Bogotá, Colombia. Methodologically, the aim was to design a social experience to contribute to the consolidation of an Academic Council as a community of practice (Wenger, 2001). This research is part of the author's postdoctoral stay in the Doctorado Interinstitucional en Educación at the Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas. Among the main results, seven types of discursive actions manifested by the Academic Council community, during the development of the strategy, were identified, which indicated degrees of tension regarding the communicative strategy. Among the main concussions it was found that the strategy was recognized, but not accepted.

Argumentation in the sciences

Mario Gensollen — 2025-06-02

We explore some explanations of the mutual and common disdain for the link between argumentation and science in the disciplines that study these practices. In the state of the art of argumentation theory, we identify and criticize the assumption that disagreement is a necessary condition for argumentation, or that argumentation is intended to resolve disagreements or differences of opinion. We examine and qualify the widely held assumption in the philosophy of science that scientific argumentation is the mere externalization of reasoning, which can be rationally evaluated regardless of the process, the participants, and the context in which it occurs. Against these conceptions, we characterize argumentation as a constitutively epistemic practice, as a form of inquiry. This allows to start closing the gap between argumentation and science, contributing to our understanding of both practices.

ESPA´ÑOL WBE and COVID-19: an analysis from argument dialectics

Sara Hssaine Pallarés — 2025-06-02

This paper analyses, from an argumentative point of view, the use of WBE in the media context of COVID-19. Specifically, the analysis will focus on both the identification and reconstruction of the arguments, as well as their logical evaluation in the specific theoretical and discursive context. The objective is to analyse and reflect on the acceptance and legitimation of scientific innovations in times of health crisis. For this purpose, I will jointly use the tools of the dialectics of arguments, and the concept of the argumentative device - developed by the authors Sally Jackson and Jodi Schneider. The analysis reveals the occurrence of a triple simplification when transferring arguments belonging to a specialised scientific context to the media context, a phenomenon that may be of particular interest to study in other cases and circumstances.