Comments for Argunet

Comment on Going live: Using argument maps for debate moderation by Rocke

Rocke — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 23:26:29 +0000

Hello, a réal professionnel modérator should be willing to guide and structure a debate and use a dédicated software if necessary. Even participants should have basics skills to participate constructively to a debate (like staying focused, avoid contradictory statements, These are the conditions for effective meetings and people should start learning how to debate at primary school already. Keep up the good work. Thanks

Comment on So, what exactly is an argument map? by Using Research in WritingMadrid Writers' Club | Madrid Writers' Club

Using Research in WritingMadrid Writers' Club | Madrid Writers' Club — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:24:18 +0000

[…] out argunet for an […]

Comment on So, what exactly is an argument map? by Christian Voigt

Christian Voigt — Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:44:29 +0000

Sorry for answering so late.

Thanks for your interest. You might want to check out http://philpapers.org/rec/BETAAV and other publications of us where we introduce the theory of dialectical structures.

Comment on So, what exactly is an argument map? by Ernani Gaspar

Ernani Gaspar — Fri, 16 Aug 2013 10:47:18 +0000

My PhD is related to domain ontologies and their construction process. As a shared conceptualization, they are discussed by stake holders. Capturing the ontology design rationale might be also approached as an argumentation process. Thus, your approach seems to converge with my investigation. Do you have the language meta-model? Or any material from which I can go further in studying the applicability of you work? Thanks.

Comment on Factcheck by Debattenprofis: A Comment on an Argument Mapping Experiment by Gregor Betz

Gregor Betz — Fri, 24 May 2013 18:20:22 +0000

Ralf — thanks a lot for providing these constructive comments and sharing your experience! I appreciate points 1-3. We should be open-minded pluralists and try out a variety of tools for presenting argumentative analyses. I consider the argument browser a leightweight, flexible (and to some extent experimental) tool that can be enhanced in a modular way. May be we can have a more concrete discussion about features once it’s available.

Your point 4), I have to say, however, does not cohere with my own experience. It’s crucial to keep in mind that reconstruction is distinct from evaluation, right? To reconstruct an argument, making its hidden assumption explicit, has nothing to do with saying that some premisses are necessarily true and thence have to be accepted. Also, I agree that weighing arguments is of pivotal importance when you want to come to a conclusion given a complex debate. But detailed argument reconstruction, it seems to me, is a precondition for weighing the arguments in a proper way: As long as hidden assumptions are not unearthed, you might simply not see that an argument hinges on an implausible premiss and give it, as a consequence, too much weight.

But let’s continue this discussion!

Comment on Factcheck by Debattenprofis: A Comment on an Argument Mapping Experiment by Ralf

Ralf — Wed, 15 May 2013 08:30:48 +0000

Thanks for your review, Gregor. Let me add a few things.
1. “Imagine an argument map browser…”: Sure: it would be great to have that. Also, I am eager to see the the argunet browser. That said, my own preference would be to test singel features in a rapid prototyping mode, rather than investing years into the development of a software which, in the end, might turn out not to meet the demands of users. (We all know examples of that kind of software in our field.)
2. A good benchmark for what one could wish to accomplish with arguments maps would be the use of much simpler instruments such as allowing comments in the side area of the text. There are a few wordpress-plugins for that (“paragraph comments” – like here: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-real-abortion-tragedy-by-peter-singer). But: no website of a major news website has this feature! I believe though, that we need these websites in order to get an audience. (Any other great software which not run on these wil thus be of limited use.)
The embedded mindmap we used is a workaround to deal with the situation just described. My obrservation: Embedding draws much more readers into the game than just re-directing them to a second site.
3. I would test for “argumentative problem structuring” and “visualizsation” separately. Concerning the visualization, I like just to point to the fact that Tim (with YourView), Simon (with the new ExpertHub) and Tom (with the latest edition of a structured-consultation tool based on Carneades) have turned away from using maps as a primary means for communication. (I also tried to translate the map into a structured-consultation tool lately: http://www.debattenprofis.de/praenatest/
4. Concerning the argumenative reconstruction: I am becoming more and more skeptical in regard to the benefits of rational reconstruction. Partly this is motivated by that sort of arguments brought forward by, Jonathan Dancy (e.g.: Dancy, J. (o.J.). Reasoning is no Inference. Abgerufen von http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/2nd_annual_online_philoso/files/jonathan_dancy.pdf). One example for this: I observerved that participants of a discussion are not willing to consider something as a “prima facie” reason. / I also have encountered the situation that is often impossible to state the premisses of an argument without offending one of the conflicting parties. / Often, the final act of weighting the arguments is much more important than the arguments themselves. The reasoning that goes along with weighting offers many, many option. Any approach that tries to force readers to accept something like necessery conclusions (which in their view might not be necessary at all) will probably not be accepted by them. In other words: rational reconstruction and enabling participation might be conflicting goals.
Best,
Ralf

Comment on Factcheck by Debattenprofis: A Comment on an Argument Mapping Experiment by Gregor Betz

Gregor Betz — Mon, 13 May 2013 18:09:27 +0000

Thanks a lot Tim! It's remarkable that you've eventually come to a sceptical conclusion. The criticism you advance in your "Cultivating Deliberation for Democracy" dovetails with some of my own experience: It's certainly true that you must not expect internet users to articulate their reasons as premiss-conclusion-structures, for example. If you impose too much structure, you risk to suffocate the debate. This insight, however, leaves plenty of room for argument analysis in improving public discourse, be it as a (possibly behind-the-scenes) tool for moderators of discussion, or as a method to inform a (free-floating) controversy. I share our experience with our latest public policy project here. Your nice yourview.org.au or adhocracy.de are nonetheless a real improvement for online deliberation.

Comment on Six Critical Thinking Textbooks Reviewed (Textbook Reviews Series, #1) by Gregor Betz

Gregor Betz — Wed, 08 May 2013 18:09:04 +0000

Thanks Tom! That’s a good suggestion. “Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation” will be one of the next books to be reviewed here.

Comment on Six Critical Thinking Textbooks Reviewed (Textbook Reviews Series, #1) by Tom Gordon

Tom Gordon — Wed, 08 May 2013 15:09:38 +0000

I can recommend “Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation”, by Doug Walton, Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Comment on Factcheck by Debattenprofis: A Comment on an Argument Mapping Experiment by Tim van Gelder

Tim van Gelder — Thu, 02 May 2013 06:00:46 +0000

Thanks for that interesting discussion. For what its worth, over about a decade I've gone from being an enthusiast about the potential of argument mapping to aid public deliberation, to a skeptic. My views are summarised in the article Cultivating Deliberation for Democracy. Ralf's comment "this is hardly surprising: In many contributions, commentators looked for engaging in a dialog" is consistent with this view.