Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. Logical Argument Mapping (LAM): A cognitive-change-based method for building common ground Michael H.G. Hoffmann m.hoffmann@gatech.edu October 27, 2007
  2. 2. Outline • Argument visualization: State of the art • Some definitions • Specific differences of Logical Argument Mapping (LAM) • The goal: Building common ground through cognitive change in four areas • Cognitive change and Peirce’s concepts of diagrammatic reasoning and pragmatism • The compulsory power of diagrams • Requirements for cognitive-change-based argument visualization tools • The normative standard of LAM: Three rules • The LAM procedure • The essential ideas behind LAM • Analysis of an exemplary argument • Conventions for constructing LAM arguments • Conclusion • References m.hoffmann@gatech.edu
  3. 3. Argument visualization: State of the art in three areas Argumentation in a broader sense (focus on clarifying issues, sensemaking, problem solving, collaborative learning): • Belvedere: Dan Suthers • Compendium, ClaiMapper: Simon Buckingham Shum • Dialog mapping: Conklin, 2006 Argumentation in a narrow sense: • Toulmin, 2003 <1958> • Wigmore Diagrams (1931): Rowe & Reed, 2006 • Carneades: Gordon, Prakken, & Walton, 2007 • Rationale: van Gelder, 2007 • Araucaria: Reed & Rowe, 2004 Systems to translate various argumentation styles • Argument Interchange Format (AIF): Chesnevar et. al., 2006 • World Wide Argument Web (WWAW): Rahwan, Zablith, & Reed, 2007
  4. 4. Some definitions • Argument: An instantiation of an argument scheme. The general form of an argument scheme is always that of relating at least one reason to a claim (various lists of argument schemes can be found in Walton, 1995; Pollock, 1995; Katzav & Reed, 2004; hist. overview: Garrson, 2001). • Logical Argument: An argument whose argument scheme is a valid rule of inference (modus ponens, complete induction, etc.) • Argumentation: A set of arguments and statements that support, object to, or evaluate elements of those arguments
  5. 5. Specific differences of Logical Argument Mapping (LAM) • Uses primarily logically valid argument schemes • Main function: To induce cognitive change • Central idea: Logical inference forms establish a normative standard for arguments. In her attempts to meet this standard, the user is challenged to enter a kind of dialectical process that leads her back and forth between improving her own understanding of the issue in question and the way she represents it • That means: LAM is more an interventional than a descriptive tool • Following Thomas Aquinas: Before you attack an argument, make it as strong as possible • The focus is on representing subjective (and intersubjective) perspectives, not on an objectivist reconstruction of some “truth.” Since everybody frames a problem or conflict differently, the “authorship” of an argument is important
  6. 6. The goal: Building common ground through cognitive change in four areas 1. Facilitated conflict negotiations 2. Deliberative decision making In (1.) and (2.) LAM can be used to deepen mutual understanding and to stimulate cognitive change in cases where mutual understanding is a central problem 3. Analysis of texts and narratives LAM can help the analyst to find common ground between her interpretation and the material’s rationality 4. Intercultural communication There is some hope that through an intercultural development of LAM argument schemes a sort of universal argument language can be formed
  7. 7. Cognitive change and Peirce’s concepts of diagrammatic reasoning and pragmatism • Diagrammatic reasoning: by externalizing our reasoning in diagrams, we create “something (non-ego) that stands up against our consciousness. … reasoning unfolds when we inhibit the active side of our consciousness and allow things to act on us” (Hull, 1994) • “Diagrams” are those “icons” that are constructed by means of a certain “representational system” (Peirce, CP 4.418) • E.g. an axiomatic system: A system of axioms does not only define the representational means that are available in a field, but it determines also the necessary outcome of any operation or experimentation we perform within such a system.
  8. 8. The compulsory power of diagrams It is the ontology (elements and relations) and the rules of the chosen system of representation that determines which experiments with diagrams are possible, and their necessary outcome. For Peirce, this is the foundation of his pragmatism: It is a “practical consideration” that “if one exerts certain kinds of volition, one will undergo in return certain compulsory perceptions. … Kant’s construction to certain lines of conduct will prove that the sum of the entail certain kinds of inevitable experiences” triangle’s inner angles (CP 5.9). equals 180° degrees
  9. 9. Requirements for cognitive-change-based argument visualization tools 1. Since a diagram is the more “compelling” the stronger the rules of the representational system, and the better we understand and realize these rules, we need, first, a standard of argumentation that is as strong as possible and, second, the readiness of people to pursue the goal of meeting this standard as strictly as possible. 2. Whatever is relevant for the possibility of cognitive change, or what might have an impact on the acceptability of an argument, must be visible 3. To reduce cognitive load, only what is relevant should be visible 4. To allow the integration into the World Wide Argument Web (WWAW) proposed by Rahwan, Zablith, & Reed (2007), each element of an argumentation should be tagged using the ontology of the Argument Interchange Format (AIF)
  10. 10. The normative standard of LAM: Three rules 1. Structure your map according to an argument scheme whose logical validity is evident and generally accepted 2. make sure that all your premises (reasons and warrants) are true, and provide further arguments for their truth if they are not evident 3. make sure that all your premises are consistent with each other
  11. 11. The LAM procedure 1. Identify the logical argument scheme that represents best what you try to map as an argument 2. Transform what you identified as an argument into a logical argument by adding what is missing, and by reformulating the elements of the argument in a way that its validity in accordance with the scheme becomes evident 3. Consider possible objections against both the reason and the warrant. (At this point, the compelling character of LAM as a representational system plays out. Since we are challenged to explicate everything that is needed to get a logically valid argument, we can see exactly where the argument can be weakened) 4. Decide whether to develop new arguments against the objections, or to reformulate it in a way that it can be defended against the objections, or to give up the whole argument
  12. 12. The essential ideas behind LAM • The normative standard of the three rules challenges the LAM user to explicate everything that is necessary to get a logical argument map, and to refine her or his map as long as it takes to meet this standard • This means 1. that all those implicit background assumptions that determine how we frame an issue—and that are mostly responsible for problems of mutual understanding—become visible and an object of reflection 2. that all the parts of an argument—not only what someone explicitly mentions—are on the table and can be questioned so that a process of building common ground will be motivated • Visualizing what hinders most in building common ground is essential for cognitive change • From an epistemological point of view, the truth of premises in arguments is either evident or has to be justified in an ongoing process of argumentation. Thus, Logical Argument Mapping leads either to assumptions that can be accepted as socially shared, or to a certain modesty regarding truth claims • Whatever the outcome might be, it is a process that we engage in when mapping the logical structure of an argument.
  13. 13. Analysis of two exemplary arguments 1. The map 2. Analysis of an argument about the importance of jihad (877 KB)
  14. 14. Conventions for constructing LAM arguments Layout • The structure of a LAM map is determined by Western reading habits that direct our attention from the top left corner of a page to the right and downwards • Since the understanding of an argument is facilitated when we know the central claim from the very beginning, this claim is located on top of the map in the left corner • Starting from there, we work to the right and downwards to reconstruct the reasons and warrants in an ongoing process of argumentation Ontology: statements and relations • Statements are presented in two different text box forms: rounded rectangles and ovals. Based on their importance for cognitive change, the warrants are highlighted by using oval text boxes; everything else is presented in rounded rectangles • The ground color specifies a coherent position, all statements in this color must be consistent; objections and other considerations are presented in different colors • Relations are represented by arrows. Each arrow must be specified by 1. Its function: “therefore” for arguments; “opposes,” “refutes,” “rejects,” “questions,” “supports,” etc. for other functions 2. By naming the chosen logical argument scheme (S-R: rule of inference scheme) or a conflict scheme (S-C) 3. By naming the person/group/institution that claims this relation (AU: author)
  15. 15. Conclusion • The purpose of Logical Argument Mapping (LAM) is to facilitate processes of building common ground in three areas: Conflict negotiations  Deliberative decision making  Analysis of texts and narratives  Intercultural communication  • Its main objective is to motivate cognitive change • If cognitive change is the goal, then more important than finding the truth with regard to an issue is to promote self-reflexivity: revealing implicit assumptions and motivating both insight into one’s own limitations and an ongoing process of reframing
  16. 16. LAM: Older examples on the web • Searching for common ground on Hamas (March 31, 2007; 279 KB) http://cmapspublic2.ihmc.us/servlet/SBReadResourceServlet?rid=1175354427380_673614899_4820&partName=htmltext • Hume on causality (March 12, 2007; 2.0 MB!) http://cmapspublic2.ihmc.us/servlet/SBReadResourceServlet?rid=1174485108126_1315080200_6415&partName=htmltext • Regulating kidney supply (Feb 27, 2007; 618 KB) http://cmapspublic2.ihmc.us/servlet/SBReadResourceServlet?rid=1172634181185_1938633584_8077&partName=htmltext • Middle East conflict. An Argumentation on the sovereignty over al-Haram al- Sharif/Temple Mount in Jerusalem (May 30, 2006; 763 KB) http://cmapspublic2.ihmc.us/servlet/SBReadResourceServlet?rid=1174484935398_1054902877_6189&partName=htmltext
  17. 17. References Chesnevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., et al. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format. Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), 293-316. Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Garrson, B. (2001). Argument Schemes. In F. H. v. Eemeren (Ed.), Critical concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 81-100). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Gordon, T. F., Prakken, H., & Walton, D. (2007). The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15), 875-896. Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2004). How to Get It. Diagrammatic Reasoning as a Tool of Knowledge Development and its Pragmatic Dimension. Foundations of Science, 9(3), 285-305. —— (2005). Logical argument mapping: A method for overcoming cognitive problems of conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16(4), 305–335. —— (in press). Cognitive conditions of diagrammatic reasoning. Semiotica (special issue on quot;Peircean diagrammatical logic,quot; ed. by J. Queiroz and F. Stjernfelt). Hull, K. (1994). Why Hanker After Logic? Mathematical Imagination, Creativity and Perception in Peirce's Systematic Philosophy. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 30, 271–295. Katzav, J., & Reed, C. A. (2004). On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments. Argumentation, 18(2), 239 - 259. Kirschner, P. A., Shum, S. J. B., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-making. London: Springer. Peirce. (CP). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP. Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive carpentry. A blueprint for how to build a person. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press. Rahwan, I., Zablith, F., & Reed, C. (2007). Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15), 897-921. Reed, C. A., & Rowe, G. W. A. (2004). Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation. International Journal of AI Tools, 14(3-4), 961-980. Rowe, G. W. A., & Reed, C. A. (2006). Translating Wigmore Diagrams [Electronic Version]. Retrieved Oct. 18, 2007, from http://babbage.computing.dundee.ac.uk/chris/publications/2006/comma2006-wig.pdf Toulmin, S. E. (2003 <1958>). The Layout of Arguments. In The uses of argument (Updated ed., pp. 87-134). Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press. van Gelder, T. J. (2007). Rationale: Making People Smarter Through Argument Mapping [Electronic Version]. Law, Probability and Risk, submitted, from http://www.austhink.com/pdf/vangelder_submitted.pdf Walton, D. (1995). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wigmore, J. H. (1931). The Principles of Judicial Proof (2nd ed.): Little, Brown & Co.