In a helpful review article Franciska Snoek Henkemans reminds us that in

most approaches, at least three types of argument structure are distinguished: (1) serial reasoning (or subordinate argumentation), (2) linked reasoning (or coordinate argumentation), and (3) convergent reasoning (or multiple argumentation). (p. 447)

She explains:

Reasoning is serial if one of the reasons supports the other. If reasoning is linked, each of the reasons given are directly related to the standpoint, and the reasons work together as a unit. When each reason separately supports the standpoint (to some degree), the reasoning is convergent. A complex argument can combine all of these types of argument structure. (p. 447)

Reconstructing linked argumentation

Here’s an example of a linked reasoning (from T. Govier’s A Practical Study of Argument, pp. 37-38):

The two reasons jointly support the conclusion, i.e., they are part of one and the same argument that justifies the conclusion. This argument is:

1. Vulnerability to heart disease is not environmental.
2. Vulnerability to heart disease is either inherited or environmental.
3. Thus: Vulnerability to heart disease is inherited.

And the Argunet argument map which represents the linked reasoning looks as follows:

Reconstructing convergent argumentation

Here’s an example of a convergent reasoning (again from T. Govier’s A Practical Study of Argument, pp. 38-39):

The two reasons support the conclusion independently of each other. That is, they give rise to two independent arguments, which might be reconstructed as follows.

Supporting Argument A:

1. Setting aside apartments for adults and keeping out children discriminates against people with children.
2. Whatever discriminates against people with children should not be done. [Implicit premiss]
3. Thus: One should not set aside apartments for adults and keep out children.

Supporting Argument B:

1. Setting aside apartments for adults and keeping out children encourages single, childless people to pursue an overly selfish lifestyle.
2. Whatever encourages single, childless people to pursue an overly selfish lifestyle should not be done.
3. Thus: One should not set aside apartments for adults and keep out children.

The Argunet argument map of the convergent argument reads:

Reconstructing serial argumentation

Finally, consider this case of serial reasoning:

Reason 2 supposedly supports reason 1, which backs the conclusion. The serial reasoning can be reconstructed as a chain of two arguments, such that the conclusion of Argument B is a premiss of Argument A.

Supporting Argument B:

1. Above 350 ppm, CO2 levels risk to cause, in the long run, sea level rise to which societies cannot adapt.
2. Whatever risks to cause, in the long run, sea level rise to which societies cannot adapt, risks to cause dangerous climate change in the long run. [Implicit premiss]
3. Thus: Above 350 ppm, CO2 levels risk to cause dangerous climate change in the long run. [Premiss 1 of Argument A]

Supporting Argument A:

1. Above 350 ppm, CO2 levels risk to cause dangerous climate change in the long run.
2. If, above a level of X, CO2 levels risk to cause dangerous climate change in the long run, then we should reduce CO2 levels below X in the long run. [Implicit premiss]
3. Thus: We should reduce CO2 levels below 350 ppm in the long run.

And this is the corresponding argument map:

So, linked, convergent and serial argumentation can be reconstructed in Argunet.

The post How To Reconstruct Linked, Convergent and Serial Arguments with Argunet appeared first on Argunet.

Climate engineering (CE) refers to large-scale technical interventions into the earth system that seek to offset the effects of anthropogenic GHG emissions. CE includes methods which shield the earth from incoming solar radiation (solar radiation management) and methods which take carbon out of the atmosphere (carbon dioxide removal).

In 2010, the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) commissioned six individual scoping studies on different aspects of CE. Eventually, these individual studies were to be integrated into a single, interdisciplinary assessment. Sebastian Cacean and myself have been charged with compiling a report on ethical aspects.

Our overall aim in writing the study was to provide value-free, neutral policy advice on ethical issues of CE. To achieve this goal, we’ve decided to carry out an analysis of the various (moral) arguments pro and con climate engineering methods. More specifically, we

• compiled a comprehensive commented bibliography of the CE discourse with a focus on ethical arguments (including scientific articles, policy statements, media reports, popular science books, etc.);
• we sketched the overall dialectical structure and the individual arguments with Argunet, which gave us a first argument map;
• we presented the preliminary argument map at project workshops to get feedback;
• and, finally, we revised our interpretation and reconstructed the arguments in detail (with Argunet).

An immediate result of this procedure was a comprehensive argument map, visualized in the following poster high-resolution poster. (Technically, we’ve exported the Argunet map as a graphml file, post-edited the map with yEd, and exported it as a PDF, which was finally included in a Powerpoint poster.)

We’ve then used the CE argument map in the BMBF project

1. to compile the report “Ethical Aspects” (download);
2. to assist policy makers in acquiring a coherent position (by evaluating alternative core positions proponents and policy makers may adopt);
3. to merge the various disciplinary studies in a final assessment report (download).

Ad 1.): The scoping study on ethical aspects of climate engineering contains a macro map of the debate that structures the entire report. Each chapter is devoted to a sub-debate of the controversy. The chapters in turn feature micro maps that display the internal structure of the sub-debates and visualize the individual arguments plus their dialectic relations. The arguments are then discussed in detail in the chapter texts. Central arguments are reconstructed as premiss-conclusion structures.

Ad 2.) We’ve also used the argument map to assist stakeholders in acquiring a coherent position.

Thus, we’ve identified alternative core positions the ministry, or another stakeholder, may adopt. Such a core position might, e.g., consist in saying that CE should be researched into so as to have these methods ready for deployment in time. We’ve than visualized the core position in the argument map and calculated the logico-argumentative implications of the corresponding stance. The map shows, accordingly, which arguments one is required to refute and which theses one is compelled to accept if one adopts the corresponding core position. By spelling out such implications we tried to enable stakeholders to take all arguments into account and to develop a well-considered position.

Ad 3.) The argument map proved also helpful in integrating the various discipline-specific studies into a single, interdisciplinary assessment report. So, the assessment report, too, starts with a macro map, which depicts the overall structure of the discourse, and lists the pivotal arguments. Most interestingly, though, all the empirical chapters of the assessment report (on physical and technical aspects, on sociological aspects, on governance aspects, etc.) consistently refer to the argument map and make explicit to which arguments the empirical discussion unfolded in the chapter is related. This allows one to trace back sophisticated empirical considerations to the general debate and hence to the key questions of the controversy.

In sum, we found that argument mapping techniques are very helpful in compiling assessment reports. Accordingly employed, the impact of argument mapping on societal discourse and policy deliberation clearly depends on whether the reports are actually read. So, one requirement that has been highlighted by this project is to develop ways for engaging recipients more actively with an argument analysis, e.g. through talks, videos or an interactive website. Other posts summarize our experience with such active involvement.

The post Mapping the Climate Engineering Controversy: A Case of Argument-Analysis Driven Policy Advice appeared first on Argunet.

	[1] Tracy Bowell and Gary Kemp: Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide. Routledge: London 2010 (3rd edition).
	[2] John Butterworth and Geoff Thwaites: Thinking Skills. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 2005.
	[3] Alec Fisher: Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 2011 (2nd edition).
	[4] Alec Fisher: The Logic of Real Arguments. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 2004 (2nd edition).
	[5] Joe Y. F. Lau: An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better. Wiley: Hoboken 2011.
	[6] Anne Thomson: Critical Reasoning: A Practical Introduction. Routledge: London 2009 (3rd edition).

In a nutshell, my favourite is Bowell/Kemp [1], closely followed by Lau [5].

Note, however, that I review the books from a particular perspective and that I don’t necessarily consider each book in its entirety. So, first of all, I focus on those parts that pertain to argument reconstruction only. Secondly, and more importantly, I assess the textbooks against a couple of key beliefs, which I shall state upfront:

Explicitness

Argument analysis makes explicit the informal judgments involved in natural language reasoning and argumentation. In particular, a good reconstruction uncovers all the hidden assumptions an argument relies on (to make them amenable to critique) and shows, in the same time, which premisses are actually unneeded.

Interpretation

To reconstruct an argument means to interpret a text. Reconstruction is guided by the principle of charity (make the reconstructed argument as strong as possible!). Consequently, one cannot separate sharply reconstruction and evaluation.

Inference

Argument reconstruction involves the assessment of deductive and non-deductive inferences and hence builds on (basic) formal logic and a theory of non-deductive inference schemes.

These statements are part of the ideal that guides our own reconstructions (see, e.g., here or here). Accordingly, this post (as well as the reviews to come) explores to which extent a textbook teaches you to reconstruct arguments in a similarly detailed and Argunet-compatible way.

Overview

As stated above, the textbook by Bowell/Kemp [1] provides, from my view, the best instruction to argument reconstruction. Lau’s [5], which covers more theoretical material but is a bit poor in examples, is also an excellent book. The following table summarizes my evaluation.

I will detail this assessment below.

Illustrative reconstructions

Let’s have a look at some example reconstructions to get a flavour of the books’ different approaches.

[1] provides the following reconstruction (pp. 136-138):

P1) Tuna catches have been decreasing significantly for the past nine years.

P2) If Tuna catches have been decreasing significantly for the past nine years, then, if the Tuna industry is not regulated more stringently, the Tuna population will vanish.

---

C1) If the Tuna industry is not regulated more stringently, the Tuna population will vanish.

P3) If the Tuna population vanishes, then the Tuna industry will collapse altogether.

---

C2) If the Tuna industry is not regulated more stringently, it will collapse altogether.

Comment: This is impeccable. The inferences in the argument are deductively valid. (That’s formally obvious, but [1] explains it in a non-formal way.) All the reasoning’s assumptions are hence made explicit. In addition, [1] nicely shows that the reconstruction is the result of a hermeneutic process involving earlier and preliminary versions of the reconstruction.

[2] analyses a complex argument about traffic rules as follows (p. 29):

R1 In a number of countries cars drive on the left.

R2 This can result in accidents involving drivers and pedestrians from other countries who are used to traffic being on the right.

(therefore)

IC: R3 Roads would be safer if in all countries the rule was the same.

R4 Countries where cars keep to the left are in a very small minority.

Therefore

C Those countries should change to the right.

Comment: The inferences in this reconstruction are not valid. Critical implicit assumptions of the argument are, moreover, not made explicit. While [2] discusses the concept of logical validity and provides a list of inference schemes, arguments are not systematically reconstructed in a deductively valid (or inductively strong) way.

[3] reconstructs an argument against genetic engineering as (p. 41):

R1<Most prospective parents would prefer to have sons>. So C1 [if people can choose the sex of their child, it is likely that there will eventually be more males than females in the population] and R2<This could produce serious social problems>; therefore C2 [we should prohibit the use of techniques which enable people to choose the sex of their children].

Comment: Basically, the ‘reconstruction’ is just a markup of the original text. No premisses are added, no text is deleted, no sentences are logically streamlined. As a consequence, the reconstructed arguments are not necessarily deductively valid or inductively strong, and implicit premisses are not uncovered by means of the reconstruction.

[4] analyses a (sub-)argument advanced by US Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger (in a letter to NATO partner in 1982) as follows (p. 65):

1. We must take the steps necessary to match the Soviet Union’s greatly improved nuclear capability.

and

2. The Soviet Union has a capability for a survivable response.

therefore

C We [the US] must have a capability for a survivable and endurable response.

Comment: The premisses and the conclusion are direct quotes from the reconstructed letter. Also, the reconstructed argument is neither deductively valid nor inductively strong, and major assumptions (e.g., a principle of practical reasoning or a statement about the side-effects of having a capability for a survivable response) remain implicit.

[5] unpacks and visualizes the structure of arguments as inference diagrams, e.g. (p. 96):

Comment: This reconstruction is absolutely fine. The inferences are deductively valid. And it’s straightforward to translate the argument map into the standard form used in Argunet, which is also introduced in [5].

A typical argument analysis in [6] reads (pp. 28-29):

The policemen gives three reasons which, taken together, are intended to support the conclusion that the burglar must have left by the fire escape:

Reason 1: This person is not in the building now

supports the claim that the burglar must have left the building. But

Reason 2: (the person) has not been seen leaving, and

Reason 3: there are guards posted at each entrance

do not entitle us to conclude that the burglar must have left by the fire escape unless we assume that Reason 3 supports an intermediary conclusion to the effect that no one could leave undetected except by the fire escape.

Comment: [6] doesn’t present reconstructed arguments in a standard form at all. The reasons stated above are direct quotes from the original text (e.g., no logical streamlining, no substantial reformulations so as to repair the inferences). Accordingly, the argument is not reconstructed in a way such that its inferences are deductively valid (or inductively strong). As a result, tacit assumptions of the reasoning are not systematically uncovered.

Detailed Assessment

Realistic examples

One of the main challenges in argument reconstruction consists in handling argumentatively opaque and logically confused texts. Simplistic cases of natural language reasoning may have a role to play in formal logic instructions, but they’re clearly insufficient if you want to learn how to deal with real argumentation. So it’s pivotal that a textbook makes use of realistic, sufficiently complex examples.

Concerning realistic examples, all books reviewed do fairly well: they discuss many and sufficiently long reasonings.

[1], [2] and [6], in particular, contain sections or chapters devoted to extra-long examples (entire pieces rather than single paragraphs). [5], however, contains somewhat fewer examples than the other books and doesn’t illustrate analysis techniques equally comprehensively.

Examples are clearly most prominent in [4]. In terms of didactic concept, [4] differs significantly from all the other textbooks: It starts with a brief introduction of basic methods and then unfolds, in eight chapters, detailed illustrative analyses of complex arguments. In this regard, [4] is certainly a valuable supplement to the other books.

Exercises and answers

Argument reconstruction is an art and involves as much knowing-how as knowing-that. You learn it by doing. All textbooks pay tribute to this fact in providing exercises and questions (as well as answers, except [4]). That makes them suitable for self-study.

Identifying arguments and their conclusions

Reconstruction starts with identifying arguments and their conclusions. All books devote a chapter or section to the question how to determine whether a text contains an argument at all and, if so, what the argument is supposed to show. They explain the basic technique of using conclusion- and premiss-indicators.

Identifying implicit premisses and the reconstruction of enthymemes

It’s here where substantial differences between the textbooks emerge. As spelled out above, a key function of argument reconstruction is to uncover hidden assumptions. A good textbook tells you how to find such implicit premisses.

Now, while [1], [2] and [5] discuss this issue in depth, [3], [4] and [6] touch upon this question only briefly and, more importantly, don’t provide a method for uncovering implicit assumptions. Quite the opposite, [3], [4] and [6] instruct the reader to identify hidden premisses on a purely intuitive basis only. But this is no advance whatsoever to our everyday practice. By resorting to informal judgement, these books fail to acknowledge that we often err as to the implicit assumptions of an argument.

[1], [2] and [5], in contrast, rightly explain that, when reconstructing an argument, implicit assumptions are added so as to make the inferences deductively valid (or inductively strong). [1] and [5] in particular discuss this pivotal problem of argument reconstruction in detail, and [1] introduces, in this context, the helpful concept of “connecting premisses” (pp. 132-133).

Employing deductive inference schemes to reconstruct arguments

Many (if not all) arguments can and should be reconstructed as deductively valid. To assess an argument’s validity is an integral part of its reconstruction: Inconclusive inferences indicate that hidden premisses have not been uncovered yet. The textbooks reviewed differ substantially in terms of the space devoted to deductive reconstruction.

[1] and [5] possess exclusive chapters on deductive validity. Both list and illustrate the most important deductive inference schemes. [1] especially motivates the logical study of inference by the fact that argument reconstruction is essentially an interpretative activity, guided by the principle of charity. Overall, logic is a bit more prominent in [5] than in [1].

[2] and [3] introduce briefly the concepts of validity and soundness but don’t come up with deductive inference patterns. More importantly, though, the connection between assessing an inference’s validity and argument reconstruction is not established (at most, [2] vaguely hints at such a link). Argument reconstruction and inference evaluation are depicted as two independent and separable procedures.

Finally, while [4] doesn’t engage in logical considerations when reconstructing natural language arguments and merely contains an appendix on formal logic, [6] doesn’t even mention the concept of logical validity — let alone apply it to assess inferences and reconstruct arguments.

Employing non-deductive inference schemes to reconstruct arguments

Deductive validity is no prerequisite for justificatory strength. There are good arguments which rely on non-deductive, or inductive inferences. Reconstructing non-deductive arguments in a charitable way is at least as challenging as analysing deductive arguments.

The chapters on deductive validity in [1] and [5] are directly followed by entire chapters on inductive, i.e. non-deductive, inference. Both books introduce various non-deductive inference schemes, including schemes for practical reasoning. Moreover, [5] discusses argument schemes for analogical reasoning and inference to the best explanation.

The other textbooks fare rather poorly. [2] only touches upon non-deductive inference in a superficial (and slightly mistaken) way (p. 62-63). [3] introduces “proved beyond reasonable doubt” as non-deductive standard of good inference, but doesn’t set forth argument schemes or inference patterns that satisfy this criterion. [4] and [6] don’t bring up inductive inference at all.

Assumptions for the sake of the argument and the reconstruction of suppositional reasoning

In a reductio ad absurdum, or indirect proof, you assume the contrary of what you want to demonstrate and then derive a contradiction. Arguments which represent such suppositional reasoning contain — besides premisses, intermediary and final conclusions — so-called assumptions for the sake of the argument. Employing assumptions f.t.s.o.t.a. in argument reconstructions is an advanced technique that also helps you to analyse justifications of conditional statements.

No book introduces assumptions f.t.s.o.t.a. in detail. [5] has a short, example-free section on reductio ad absurdum as deductively valid inference pattern. And [1] briefly discusses the technique of conditional proof. But in both books assumptions f.t.s.o.t.a. are not systematically treated as part of an argument reconstruction (like premisses, intermediary conclusions and final conclusions).

[2] mentions that, in suppositional reasoning, one spells out the consequences of hypothetical assumptions (pp. 104-105); but it gives no clue whatsoever how to reconstruct such a reasoning.

Fallacies

Natural language reasoning is full of typical, common errors. In argument reconstruction, it’s very helpful to be able to recognise such fallacies.

[1] and [5] explore fallacies in depth, not only in dedicated chapters, but throughout the entire text. The books present and systematize more than two dozens different fallacies, most of which are illustrated by examples. (In terms of illustrations, [1] does a better job than [5].)

The detailed discussions in [1] and [5] dwarf [2]‘s treatment of fallacies (three fallacies, informally discussed on 5 pages).

The other books don’t consider fallacies, understood as typical mistakes in reasoning, at all. (Although they may discuss individual cases of flawed reasoning on an illustrative basis.)

Tips and practical guidance for argument reconstruction

Argument reconstruction is an art which one has to practice so as to master it. While there’s no algorithm to follow when reconstructing an argument, rules of thumb and practical tips may nonetheless provide helpful guidance for novices.

As regards such practical guidance, [1] clearly does best. It contains a valuable chapter dedicated to “the practice of argument-reconstruction”. Topics covered include: the need to focus and to leave aside unrelated material when reconstructing and argument; the handling of ambiguities; the clarification of the logico-semantical structure of premisses and conclusions (“logical streamlining”); the use of general principles as connecting premisses; semi-formal strategies for logical assessment.

Both [2] and [5] fall short of [1]‘s detailed advice, but give some helpful tips on their own, e.g.: [2] rightly recommends to reconstruct an argument backwards from its conclusion; [5] highlights a couple of typical mistakes made in argument reconstruction and suggests useful rules of thumb, such as the rabbit rule: “Every key term appearing in the conclusion of an argument must also appear in at least one of the premises.” (p. 101)

All books stress the need to use precise language, e.g. to resolve ambiguities in an argument.

The post Six Critical Thinking Textbooks Reviewed (Textbook Reviews Series, #1) appeared first on Argunet.

This is how Grötker describes the overall design of the experiment:

“Faktencheck” brings together elements of reader participation and journalistic investigation on controversial issues with a scientific background. There’s a live investigation for a period of 3 days. Readers have the opportunity to join the investigation in a forum. A moderator transfers both comments in the online forum as well as other results from the investigation into a so-called argument map.

According to Grötker, the role of argument maps was ambivalent. On the negative side he notes:

The great hope, which we associated with using argument maps, was that it would be feasible to somehow order the discussion in the forum. In this regard, the experiment was rather disappointing. Only a few commentators made use of the opportunity to refer directly to the branches of the map. At closer look, however, this is hardly surprising: In many contributions, commentators looked for engaging in a dialog — mostly, by the way, in an astonishingly respectful way.

Let me jump in here. It’s clear from a brief look at the webpages which document the experiment that the argument maps didn’t help to structure the online discussions. So, is argument mapping in general unsuitable for such a task? I’m not prepared to draw this conclusion yet. As has been noted by participants of Faktencheck before, it seems a major problem that the argument map is totally disconnected from the online debate.

• The arguments in the map don’t link to the contributions they reconstruct. (Although some arguments contain roll-over quotes from the online discussion.)
• The contributions in the online forum, in turn, don’t link to arguments that represent the contribution, either.
• The argument map is, moreover, embedded on a different page than the online forum.

(To make things worse, the discussion seems to be conducted in several, separate online forums.)

That might explain why the map played virtually no role in structuring the discussion.

Another issue is the software Debattenprofis have used. Look at the startscreen of the map about textile boycotts:

That doesn’t look very inviting. Even more importantly,

• it’s really cumbersome to navigate the map, and difficult to get an overview;
• more specifically, it’s not straightforward to focus on one argument and its adjacent reasons only;
• the debate doesn’t exhibit a macrostructure;
• the hierarchical layout is very space consuming, which is a major disadvantage if the map is embedded.

Let me also note that the Faktencheck argument maps are not based on detailed reconstructions of the arguments advanced in the online forum, but merely “sketch” (as we use to say) the debate. As a consequence, the dialectic relations between the arguments are still provisional and seem to some extent arbitrary.

Ok, back to Grötker’s upshot, which also highlights a positive effect of argument mapping in the Faktencheck experiment:

The visualization fulfills an important function nonetheless. As the argument map strived to represent all pros and cons (concerning the corresponding claim), it goes along with a certain promise of neutrality. The opponents don’t have to agree on a common evaluation of the arguments in the map. But they have to agree that the controversial issues are comprehensively represented. This promise of neutrality was particularly helpful when we asked external experts to join the factcheck. The opinions of experts could enter the map without us being required to come to the same conclusion as the experts in our final summary — a fair set-up for all parties.

It’s an obvious virtue of argument mapping that it allows opponents at least to agree on what the arguments are and how they relate to each other. Also, to agree on an argument map doesn’t compel one to endorse a certain position. Faktencheck seems to have vindicated these argument mapping advantages.

To connect the dots, however, imagine an argument map browser that allows users to enter their assessment of the arguments (‘refute’ vs. ‘accept’) as they skim through the debate. This might not only enhance user experience but help to integrate the debate visualization and the online discussion.

Be that as it may, Ralf Grötker has conducted an exciting experiment and I’m looking forward to Debattenprofis’ future argument mapping projects!

The post Factcheck by Debattenprofis: A Comment on an Argument Mapping Experiment appeared first on Argunet.

Relaunch

We decided to simplify things: one page for the editor, one for our upcoming browser widget and one for our new blog. This will make it easier for you to find what you are looking for. And it will make it easier for us to maintain the site. Did I say “new blog”?

Yes, a brand-new blog!

While we were busy deploying Argunet in exciting new projects and trying out unreleased cool features, this site lay dormant for years. With this new blog we want to change that. Next week we will begin to post regularly about everything related to Argunet, argument maps and argumentation theory in general. So watch out for new posts!

Fine, but where are my argument maps?

Now to the bad news: We will no longer support publishing argument maps on our site. First of all, this was never a feature that was really used that much by our users. And secondly it made it hart to update and change this site according to our needs (one of the reasons we didn’t do it for years).

Don’t be mad at us. We didn’t delete your debates on the Argunet server. You can edit, download or export them with Argunet Editor. And we still want to help you publishing your own argument maps on the web. We only think there are much better ways to do this…

Announcing Argunet Browser

Wouldn’t it be nice if it were as easy to embed your argument maps into your own webpage as it is with a youtube video? We thought so as well. In the last months we worked hard on a first version of an Argunet Browser widget that you can use wherever you want. It will only take three steps: 1) Export your argument map from Argunet Editor into an xml file, 2) upload the file to your webspace and 3) embed Argunet Browser in your page. That’s it.

So, where is it? It’s practically ready to be released. Just wait for a week or two… (or take a peak at a first screenshot.)

Release of Argunet Editor 2.0

And there are even more good news: Argunet Editor has gotten a facelift as well! And it looks not only better than ever, it comes with some handy new features as well! Download Argunet 2.0 now.

Features

• Argunet files: Local debates are now managed via local argunet files (.arg). You can now backup, copy and share debates as easily as other files (you can even share them via Dropbox).
• Compatibility: Old debates will be imported the first time you start Argunet 2.0. Please note that the server has been updated and is now incompatible with older versions of Argunet. If you want to work online, please update your client!
• Restore: If Argunet should crash during your work, it will restore your debates on restart.
• Automatic Layout: Argunet has now a build in layouter (ColumnBasedLayouter) which automatically layouts argument maps. For even better layout results we recommend that you also install the new YFiles Layouter plugin. Because Argunet is open-source and the layout plugin is based on proprietary code, Argunet cannot come shipped with it. But if you don’t want to miss out on Argunet’s coolest new feature, you should really check it out.
• Plugins: It is possible to install Argunet-Plugins. Currently the followings plugins are available:
  • YFiles Hierarchical Graphlayouter: An advanced layouter to automatically layout an argument-map.
  • Argunet Graphexporter: This plugin enables you to export an argument map into different file-formats (such as pdf, jpg, svg and graphml). Using the graphml-format argument-maps can now be edited in other graph-editings tools, such as yEd Graph Editor or embeded into webpages via the Argunet-Browser.

Fixes

• Copying of colors and groups between debates.
• Key-binding bugs.

Known Issues

• If you use the new layout algorithms they will insert bended arrows into your map. Currently, it is not possible to edit bendpoints or copy and paste them between argument-maps in a debate or between different debates. Instead, just klick again on “layout” after changing your map.

That’s it for now. Please let us know what you think of our rebirth.

The post Relaunch & Release: Argunet 2.0 appeared first on Argunet.

The reconstruction and visualisation with argument maps can be useful in many ways:

• Argument maps can give you a fast overview over the state of a debate
• Argument maps help you to remember complex argumentation structures
• The logical reconstruction allows a detailed analysis and evaluation of arguments and dialectic strategies
• Argument maps help to keep focused on relevant parts of the debate by filtering out irrelevant or redundant information
• Argument maps help concentrate on a rational, fair debate
• Argument maps can guide and structure live discussions. Misunderstandings, repitition and unfair persuasion techniques can be avoided.
• Argument mapping can be used for presentations or whole seminars

How do I read an argument map?

Argument Maps contain two elements: Sentences and Arguments.

Sentences

Sentences are visualised as small framed white boxes.

Arguments

Arguments are visualised as small colored boxes

Reconstructed Arguments

If an argument has been logically reconstructed, the argument is visualised as a small framed colored box. You can open the logical reconstruction by clicking on it.

Logically an argument consists of nothing else but sentences. But these sentences play different roles in an argument. Every argument has one inferred sentence (the conclusion) and at least one sentence from which the conclusion is inferred (a premiss). This premiss-conclusion structure is visualised as a sentence list: First all premisses of the argument are listed. Each horizontal line symbolizes an inference. Under the line the conclusion is listed (sometimes there are preliminary conclusions). Under the last line stands the main conclusion of the argument.

Support relations

If an argument supports a sentence of another argument, a green arrow is drawn from the former to the latter.

If the arrow is drawn-through, the support relation has been logically reconstructed. Logically, an argument supports another argument, if the conclusion of the supporting argument is equivalent to a premiss of the supported argument (”Socrates is mortal”, “Socrates will die”).

If you click on the arrow, you can see which sentences are defined as equivalent.

If the arrow is dashed, the support relation is only sketched and not logically reconstructed.

Attack relations

If an argument attacks a sentence of another argument, a red arrow is drawn from the former to the latter.

If the arrow is drawn-through, the attack relation has been logically reconstructed. Logically, an argument attacks another argument, if the conclusion of the supporting argument is contrary to a premiss of the supported argument (”Socrates is mortal”, “Socrates will never die”).

If you click on the arrow, you can see which sentences are defined as contrary.

If the arrow is dashed, the support relation is only sketched and not logically reconstructed.

Reading tips

• Start from the center of the debate. Look for the central thesis (sometimes there are more than one). Open and read all reconstructed arguments that support or attack the central thesis. Proceed by going from the center to the periphery.
• An attack does not necessarily mean, that the attacked argument is a bad argument. A support does not necessarily mean the argument is good. It all depends on your evaluation: How plausible do you find the premisses of the attacking/supporting argument? Where are the weak points of the argumentation?
• Are the reconstructed arguments really valid? Does the conclusion follow from the premisses? If the argument is valid and the premisses are true, the conclusion has to be true, too. Is there a counter-example?
• Naturally, no argument map can contain every argument. The authors have always made a selection. Are there important arguments missing?

Please read the introduction of the Argunet Editor Help for further information.

Do argument maps tell me, what I should believe?

No, they don’t. Argument maps are just a tool you can use for making up your mind. The better an argument map is, the more unbiased and neutral it is.

Every argument presupposes premisses. How good the arguments in the argument map are depends on how plausible their premisses are. The attack and support relations of the argument map do not determine the plausibility of the premisses, they only limit the possibilities by relating the plausibilities of different sentences to one another.

So, it is really up to you. Argument maps can show you, which questions you have to answer to make up your mind. They can not answer these questions for you.

Just download Argunet Editor for free. Start Argunet and click on “Create a new debate”. You can create local debates on your computer or start an online debate to collaborate with others.

 How can I create an argument map?

Follow the instructions in our first Tutorial (All tutorials come with your Argunet installation, so you do not have to read them online). It won’t take long and will teach you the Argunet basics.

Is there any difference to mind-mapping?

Yes, there are many differences. Argument maps may remind you of mind maps, because they look similar. But that’s about it. Mind maps have a different methodology, serve different purposes and are used by different people. Here are just some important differences:

• Mind maps are used for brainstorming, i.e. the collection of subjective associations, opinions, ideas of all sorts. Argument maps are used for the logical reconstruction and analysis of controverse debates. In most cases these debates will take place between different people with different perspective and not in your mind alone.
• In mind maps the visualisation means to you, what you want it to mean. That may be great for you, but it is not so great if you want to share the products of your mind with others. In every Argunet argument map the meaning of all elements always stays the same and is well defined by logic or argumentation theory. This precision is not only necessary if you want to assess complex arguments and argumentations. It gives you also the opportunity to share your insights with others in a common visual language.
• There are no real rules in mind-mapping. You can do what you want. Nobody can say what is right and what is wrong. In contrast, giving and taking reasons is a rule guided practice. There are rules about good and bad reasoning. Argument maps can not guarantee good reasoning. But they can restrict the users options in a way that makes it more probable. This rule-guided reconstruction makes it possible to collaborate on argument maps even if the participants have opposing views in the reconstructed debate.

The post So, what exactly is an argument map? appeared first on Argunet.

The label-feature allows you to mark the debates with some keywords relevant to your work and to filter the debates by the keywords you have introduced, thus saving you time and unneeded scrolling.

The post Argunet 1.2.0 released appeared first on Argunet.

•  fastens Client-Server communication. Specifically, argument maps are only updated if they have been changed on the server. This fixes the issue that you could hardly work on huge maps online.
• improves the inplace editor for arguments and theses.
• adds context menu options: “Insert conclusion into map”, “Insert premisses into map”
• adds context menus everywhere
• eliminates group-blinking.

The post Argunet 1.0.1 released appeared first on Argunet.

The post Argunet Server up again appeared first on Argunet.

Until then, you can use all features of Argunet locally and offline. If the server is running again, you will be able to upload your argument maps to an online debate. Sorry for the inconvenience.

The post Argunet server temporarily down appeared first on Argunet.