Screenshot of the Argdown Sandbox

Argunet - a brief look back

We (Gregor Betz, Helen Bohse, Sebastian Cacean, David Schneider, and myself) started working on Argunet back in 2006 and published the first version in 2007 (with funding from the Free University Berlin). Over the years it has been downloaded more than 50.000 times, which is a lot, given the small number of argument mapping enthusiasts and the limited publicity of the software.

But first and foremost, we developed Argunet because we needed such a tool in our own work. And overall it did its job well! We have used it for many different purposes, be it in philosophy seminars, in research projects, for reconstructing huge debates, or for the moderation of live events.

Over time, however, three problems emerged. By design and through the technology used, Argunet is a “monolithic” application:

• Instead of “doing one thing and doing it well”, Argunet tries to be the swiss army knife of argument mapping. This makes it a comparatively large and complex software that is neither easy to use, nor to maintain.
• Because of the technology used, Argunet became more and more difficult to maintain with our limited resources. Argunet is a Java application and uses the Eclipse application framework. Eclipse is known for its complexity and has continuously evolved over the years. Working on Argunet on our free time, we never could keep up, let alone extend Argunet with new features. Differences between operating systems only made matters worse and caused a lot of installation problems.
• Argunet is closely coupled to the Eclipse framework and can not be used as a part of other software that use other application frameworks. Other software can neither directly interact with Argunet nor can its data be read or written without extra export and import steps. Instead, Argunet tries to do everything “on its own”. Additionally, it is very complicated to extend the existing code base with new plugins.

At some point we had to decide if we should rather invest a huge effort into practically rewriting Argunet, or if it made more sense to completely rethink our approach and start anew. We decided to do the latter.

What will happen with Argunet?

As a result of this decision, we currently do not plan to release any new Argunet versions.

This site will remain online and you can still download and use Argunet. If you have installation problems, take a look at the questions asked in the google group or post a new question. We will still try to answer your questions as best as we can.

We are considering, however, to provide additional tools (possibly Argunet Export Plugins) that allow you to save your existing Argunet debates as Argdown files. (If you want to support us in doing so, please get in touch!)

Argdown’s origin story

Around 2012 I started experimenting with combining argument mapping with real-time chat and forum applications. I needed an intuitive way how non-expert users could “augment” their text messages so that it software could extract and visualize the argumentative structure of their discussions. My idea was to define a syntax for text messages that was as easy to use as writing a Twitter message. The inspiration for this syntax was Markdown, so I simply called the new syntax “Argdown”.

While I ultimately abandoned the prototype in pursuit of other projects, Argdown was so much fun to use that we (by now the DebateLab Karlsruhe) finally decided to develop it into a free and open software tool that was expressive enough to let experts logically reconstruct complex argumentation. I released the first version in 2017 and internally we started using it more and more, until it completely replaced Argunet in our work. This week I finally released version 1.0.0 together with an extensive documentation. Argdown is now ready to be used by anyone interested in argument mapping.

What is Argdown?

Argdown itself is not a software, but a syntax. It is a light-weight markup language that is easy to read and write for humans and for computers alike (to borrow a slogan from Markdown). That means that it consists of a set of simple rules how to format text in a text file. By following these rules you can write an Argdown file in any text editor you like.

If you have no experience with markup languages like Markdown, Wikitext or HTML, using a text editor and a markup language to create argument maps can seem daunting and unintuitive. But in fact it is much easier than you might think and has many advantages:

• Easy to learn, fast to use: The basic rules can be learned in three minutes and after that you will already be able to do many things a lot faster in Argdown using your keyboard, than it took you in Argunet using your mouse. Argdown was not invented as toy for nerds. It was originally invented for making argument mapping accessible to everyone. This remains one of our core development goals.
• No distraction: Additionally, using Argdown is not only faster, it also allows you to focus on the essentials. Because you are never leaving your text editor, you can completely concentrate on your writing instead of being distracted by the graphical aspects of your map or the quirks of your editor.
• Easy access: Because they are simple text files, you can merge or split up Argdown files by copy & paste. You can send them as E-Mail or even per text message. You can use a version control system like git to archive different versions of it and collaborate with other authors.

Give it a try! Just read the three-minute introduction on the start page of the Argdown documentation. After that you are ready to play with Argdown in our browser sandbox.

(If you are a “visual thinker” you still might prefer to “draw” argument maps with Argunet, instead of “writing” them with Argdown. In the future we plan to add an Argdown-based map editor that will suit your needs. For now, just keep using Argunet.)

Our new software tools

Screenshot of the VS Code extension

Software that reads and writes Argdown can be implemented in different languages and optimized for different contexts and users. I have written a parser (an Argdown reader) in JavaScript, so that it can run in the browser, as well as on any server or computer (using Node.js). Based on this parser, we have so far released three tools:

• A browser sandbox for demonstration purposes.
• An extension for VS Code, on of the best text editors around. The extension provides a live map preview, code highlighting and many other features useful for editing Argdown documents.
• A commandline tool for advanced users.

Screenshot of the Argdown Sandbox

Our Argdown tool chain is modular at its core, and framework-agnostic. This means

• it can be integrated without much effort into other applications or application frameworks. An example is the Argdown documentation itself, which is compiled from Markdown files containing Argdown code snippets. It did not take a lot of effort to add a plugin to Markdown-It that parses these snippets and inserts widgets with svg argument maps into the compiled HTML files.
• it can be easily extended by adding custom plugins via configuration files without having to wait for new Argdown releases and without having to write your own Argdown application.
• other developers can also develop new tools completely independent of our own tools and still be able to interact with them through Argdown
• because we rely on the syntax and a simple text editor as our user interface we can rapidly release new features and develop new software tools for specific use cases without having to spend time on developing new editing features on the GUI side.

What Argdown can do for you

Right now, Argdown has nearly reached “feature parity” with Argunet and surpasses it in many respects. In this section I will first list features that Argdown shares with Argunet. After that I will list the exciting new capabilities that make Argdown the superior software. Lastly, I will list the Argunet features that Argdown is not (yet) able to match.

Features shared with Argunet

Just like in Argunet, in Argdown you can

• create an argument map that looks similar to an Argunet argument map
• give your statements and arguments titles
• assign short descriptions to your arguments
• quickly sketch attack and support relations between statements and arguments in a debate
• logically reconstruct premise-conclusion structures of complex arguments
• precisely define which premises of an argument are attacked or supported
• group and colorize statements and arguments
• create different views of the same debate
• automatically layout your argument map
• assign multiple statements to the same equivalence class and define logical relations between these equivalence classes.
• export your maps to dot, svg, png or pdf

New features

Unlike in Argunet, in Argdown you can

• tag arguments and statements and automatically colorize them based on your tags
• create hierarchies of groups (groups can now contain other groups)
• quickly change grouping or colorization through configuration without changing the underlying data
• use all the advanced features of a professional code editor: syntax highlighting, code diagnostics (linting), code completion, symbol search, hierarchical document outline.
• focus on rapidly reconstructing and comment your debate in the same text document using rich text formatting, lists and headings for structuring your document, without being distracted by presentational details (colors, layout, grouping)
• use additional relations (contrary, contradiction, entailment, undercut)
• write custom plugins and add them to the Argdown tool chain in your config file
• add arbitrary meta data in YAML format (for use in custom plugins)
• export your data to JSON for further use in other software tools
• export your complete document to HTML
• use version-control systems such as Git to track changes and coordinate the work of multiple analysts

Missing features

Unlike in Argunet, in Argdown you can not

• manually layout your argument map
• export to GraphML and import to yEd for editing
• collaborate online with other users on the same file

The future

We already have a lot of ideas for new features and tools, but we will likely concentrate our work on

• integrating Argdown into different environments and workflows (Embedabble widget for websites and blogs, Markdown & Latex integration, GraphML export for map layout in yEd)
• adding a simply WYSIWIG map editor

Argdown is still a young software. We think it is stable enough to be used in your work but it definitely needs more testing. If you should encounter any bugs or have ideas how to improve the software, visit the Github repository and post an issue. For general feedback or if you want to contribute to the project, simply write us a mail. We appreciate your help!

The post A new beginning: introducing Argdown appeared first on Argunet.

We post Alexander’s report below:

At the GAP.9 in Osnabrück (conference of the Gesellschaft für Analytische Philosophy) I presented a big argument map using Gregors arguments in his commentary on Decartes Meditationes. It was called “DenkWelt Descartes” and was handmade with YEd to show all arguments unfolded with all premises at once and graphs pointing not at whole arguments but at the premises or conclusions itself. The resulting map (2,5x4m) was added to the poster session of the conference. Some looked at it from distance – taking it more as a piece of art and a representation of philosophical complexities. Some tried to figure out parts of the Meditiationes they knew (especially the cogito-argument and the arguments for the existence of God), asked for a brief introduction into the idea of argument maps or simply wondered if they were meant to read it all.
Both was fine for me, since it was originally made as an exhibit for DenkWelten (www.denkwelten.net), an association of several young German philosophers to found the first museum of philosophical ideas, trying to combine exactly visual work with philosophical ideas. In any case a little help and commentary was needed to get into the map.

Finding a good layout was hard, since automatic layouting couldn’t cope with the text or made the many inferential connections hard to track. So I stuck to the idea to make the graphs as easy to follow as possible. This way “God exists and he is perfect” ended up right in the middle connecting many arguments, what made the argumentative goal of Descartes harder to detect – which might not be what Mr. R.D. (and even Mr. G.B.) originally intended… but what can at least now be discussed fully stretched out on PVC.

The post Mega Argument Map at GAP.09 appeared first on Argunet.

The talk is documented in detail at the Science – Media – Communicaton blog, where you also find my slides:

http://wmk-blog.de/2015/02/03/wmklauscht-gregor-betz-argumentrekonstruktion-als-diskursanalyse-ein-werkstattbericht/

Thanks to WMK for inviting me and setting up the fine documentation!

The post Argument Mapping and Discourse Analysis appeared first on Argunet.

A live reconstruction at the future conference of the German green party.

How can argument maps be used for debate moderation? In this post three short “live reconstruction” case studies from 2007, 2011 and 2014 are presented.

In a “live reconstruction” the arguments of the statements made during a live discussion are reconstructed and visualised in real-time during the event. The most impressive “live reconstruction” technology so far comes from ARG-tech at the University of Dundee. ARG-tech used a huge touchscreen, the “AnalysisWall”, and a large team of analysts to transcribe, segment and analyse an episode of the BBC radio show “The Moral Maze” in 2012.

The technology we have used so far has been much simpler. But the following use cases show that the problems are not so much of technical but of a methodological nature. Even if working perfectly, it is an open question whether the technology is just a nice gimmick or if it produces real benefits for the participants of live discussions. The following cases show that such benefits are difficult to achieve if analysts, moderators, clients and participants have conflicting aims and expectations.

What is a “live reconstruction”?

Our original concept of “live reconstruction” can be characterized in the following way:

• participants argue about a concrete controversial thesis or question.
• three to four analysts work on the reconstruction of the debate with Argunet. Because Argunet is a client-server software they can work on the same map from different computers,
  • inserting important theses,
  • summarizing the arguments in short descriptions and giving them telling titles (there is not enough time for detailed logical reconstruction),
  • sketching the relations between arguments and theses,
  • layouting the argument graph.
• the emerging argument map is projected live on a big screen. Arguments ‘magically’ pop up one by one.
• the moderator uses the resulting map to structure the ongoing debate and to summarize results, e.g. she
  • asks participants whether the reconstruction is adequate,
  • directs attention to arguments that were neglected or to implicit assumptions that were revealed,
  • shows what the central claims are and what dialectical role they play in different arguments,
• participants can refer to specific arguments in the debate in order to
  • express their agreement or disagreement,
  • add new rebuttals or support, or
  • clarify their previously made statements.
• the argument map can be used to document the discussion results.

First case study: Long night of the sciences 2007

2007 was the first time we gave the “live reconstruction” a try at the “Lange Nacht der Wissenschaft” (long night of the sciences) a popular event in Berlin, where universities and other science institutions open up for the general public.

Overall this has been a very positive experience:

• the argument map was a useful moderation tool that made it easier for the moderator to keep an overview,
• participants used the map in their statements to refer to arguments,
• participants collaborated on making the map better and more representative instead of pushing and clinging to their points of view,
• this led to structured, fair and non-confrontative discussion.

At the time we were quite enthusiastic about the prospects of the method. Time has shown that this success depended crucially on the non-typical “ideal” conditions of this use case:

• it was a pro bono experiment, there were no costs to consider,
• the moderator was part of our team and an expert in argumentation theory,
• guests were expecting an experiment and came to learn about the method of argument analysis and reconstruction,
• the topic of the debate was secondary and was decided upon by the audience at the beginning of the experiment.

Second case study: Future Congress of the German Green Party 2011 (Zukunftskongress der Grünen)

Our team at work at the future conference.

In 2011 the German Green Party organized a “Future Congress” as an open and innovative forum for discussions about their party platform. The congress was organized in 14 workshops, some of which were moderated by the party leaders Claudia Roth and Cem Özdemir. We were hired to conduct live reconstructions of two workshops, one on “social justice” and one on a “common European defence policy”. Both workshops were moderated by Cem Özdemir. Our team consisted of one coordinator, two “reconstruction analysts” and one co-moderator. The boundary conditions were challenging, to say the least:

• a huge audience and speakers list,
• limited time,
• the first topic was very broad and there was no clear focus of the discussion,
• many statements from the audience were very emotional and vague,
• the moderator was not an expert in argumentation theory, though we had the opportunity to introduce him to our method beforehand,
• the moderator was a party leader, and had to meet many expectations that were not easily reconcilable with using argument maps to structure the debate and keep the participants focused on specific points,
• because of this and the time restrictions our co-moderator could only play a small and very limited role.

Not all conditions were unfavorable. The Green Party agreed to pay for a team of four experts which is quite extraordinary, considering these were moderation expenses alone. Even with such a large team the reconstruction was very exhausting, stressful and difficult for the team; and it was hard to assess whether the live projection brought any benefits for the discussion, because of the lack of interaction. Though the feedback we got was very positive, we were somewhat disillusioned.

Third case study: Annual convention of the German ethics council 2014

In 2014 we were hired by the German Ethics Council for its annual convention and gave the concept another chance: In a collaboration with Ralph Groetker from explorat we tried to develop ideas to overcome the weaknesses of our concept. We changed the process to make it financially more feasible, decrease the workload for the analysts and increase the benefits of the resulting maps. This process was tested in three parallel workshops on “reproductive ethics”. The changes were the following:

• Due to financial limitations we could only use one analyst per workshop.
• This made it impossible to create a new reconstruction from scratch live; instead we prepared maps beforehand that were based on an online survey of the invited guests and additional research.
• These maps were given to the members of the Ethics Council and their staff beforehand. In several rounds they were revised and enhanced.
• Every guest got a conference binder that included these argument maps; additionally the maps were presented on big posters at the conference.
• These maps were than augmented live with simple comments that described important claims and additional arguments of the participants, without reconstructing the precise relations of these arguments.
• Directly after the workshops the new arguments were added with post-its to the posters.
• Additionally the maps were used to document the results.
• To simplify the process even more we agreed to use the mindmapping software XMind instead of Argunet. Though this made it possible to use icons as mnemonic devices there were some limitations we think speak against using such generic software in the future (for example, the graph has to be hierarchic and argument groups have to be sub-trees).

We think that these changes proved largely sucessful. It made a huge difference for the reconstruction process that the analysts could build on already existing maps. Even though we reduced the team from three analysts to one single analyst, the reconstruction of the new arguments was feasible. The feedback was once again very positive.

Even so, this was a mixed experience, because in two of three workshops the moderators didn’t want to get distracted or restricted by the maps and refused to use live projections. In these workshops the live reconstruction had no influence on the discussion (though it was used for documentation purposes). But maybe this didn’t make such a huge difference, because in all workshops the participants had read our arguments beforehand and we got the impression that some of them used the maps to formulate their statements.

Argument map of the session on “mitochondrial transfer” at the annual convention of the German ethics council. Circular boxes were added live during the event. Rectangular boxes were reconstructed beforehand.

Conclusion:

Live reconstructions can have real benefits if the boundary conditions are just right. But in real-world deployment it is difficult to find and establish these conditions. The most important ones are:

• Preparation: The live reconstruction can only augment an already existing map, so it has to be possible to prepare such a map beforehand.
• Preparation: Clients and moderators have to be included in the reconstruction process as early as possible.
• Moderation: The moderator has to be willing and able to use the map; realistically, this will only be the case if the moderator has been trained in argument reconstruction and analysis.
• Topic: The questions to-be-discussed must be concrete and controversial.

In many cases moderators, clients and participants have conflicting expectations and aims that make it impossible to create these conditions. Under such circumstances further revisions to the process are needed to make argument maps useful for debate moderation.

The post Going live: Using argument maps for debate moderation appeared first on Argunet.

The Argunet Editor is certainly not the ideal tool for giving a presentation. Traditional slides (created with PP, Keynote or Latex), too, are unsuitable for presenting huge argument maps.

In a talk I gave in Bremen in 2011, I simply used Mac OS’s Preview program to display the Climate Engineering Argument Map: I started by showing the entire map in fullscreen mode, and then zoomed in, moved the map, zoomed out, etc. as I commented on various subdebates and arguments. Shortly after the talk I learned about Prezi …

With zooming presentation software (such as Prezi or impress.js) things have become much easier. To me, these are ideal tools for giving a scientific talk or a popular presentation based on one of our argument maps.

In the EuTRACE project, I went a step further. Using my presentations as a starting point, I created a series of screencasts, available at youtube, that introduce the climate engineering controversy.

This is an attempt to disseminate argument maps by other means than mere texts or graphics. However, it’s not clear to me whether argument map videos really work. The EuTRACE project is still ongoing and the positive feedback so far is probably not representative.

So any comments or suggestions on presenting argument maps with Prezi/impress.js and in screencasts are more than welcome.

The post Engaging the Audience: Climate Engineering Talks and Videos appeared first on Argunet.

• OLI: A course on argument diagramming by the Open Learning Initiative (OLI) at Carnegie Mellon University.
• CTW: The Critical Thinking Web compiled by Joe Lau and Jonathan Chan, hosted by the Philosophy Department at Hongkong University.
• AUT: The Argument Mapping Tutorials by Austhink.

My upshot: If you’re a newbie to argument analysis and look for a steady, step-by-step introduction, you should start with OLI‘s course and then move to the Criticial Thinking Web for more specific details and thorough treatments. In case you prefer a crisp and astute introduction, you may skip OLI and start directly with browsing the CTW (especially Module A). These two online courses jointly teach you as much as a good critical thinking textbook does. Once you have a firm grip on the topic of argument reconstruction, you might want to check out what Austhink‘s argument mapping tutorials have to say on reconstructing complex debates that consist in many arguments.

Illustrative Reconstructions

Let’s have a look at representative argument reconstructions from the tutorials, which give you a flavour of the different approaches. (My comments are cast against the background of the reconstruction ideal spelled out here.)

OLI’s Argument Diagramming Course

The Argument Diagramming Course discusses a couple of complex arguments, for example the following one:

If the Miranda decision is reversed, police will no longer be compelled to give those warnings; and if they aren’t compelled to give them, they won’t give them. But because police interrogations take place out of public view, the integrity of such interrogations can be safeguarded only if those Miranda warnings are invariably given.

The argument is reconstructed as follows (standard form):

Premise: (1) If the Miranda decision is reversed, then police will no longer be compelled to give Miranda warnings.

Premise: (2) If police aren’t compelled to give Miranda warnings, then police won’t give Miranda warnings.

Implied Sub-conclusion: (C) If the Miranda decision is reversed, then police won’t give Miranda warnings.

Premise: (3) Police interrogations take place out of public view.

Implied Premise: (B) If police interrogations take place out of public view, then the integrity of such interrogations can be safeguarded only if Miranda warnings are invariably given by police.

Sub-conclusion: (4) The integrity of police interrogations can be safeguarded only if Miranda warnings are invariably given by police.

Implied Premise: (D) The integrity of police interrogations should be safeguarded.

Implied Sub-conclusion: (E) Miranda warnings should invariably be given by police.

Main conclusion: (A) The Miranda decision should not be reversed.

And it is visualized as an argument diagram:

Comment: I think that’s nearly perfect. As you can see, the individual inferences are valid and the argument reconstruction hence makes explicit the hidden (“implied”) assumptions of the original reasoning.

Critical Thinking Web

The following text is analysed on the Critical Thinking Web.

We should not inflict unnecessary pain on cows and pigs. After all, we should not inflict unnecessary pain on any animal with consciousness, and cows and pigs are animals with consciousness.

CTW reconstruct the argument as:

(Premise 1) We should not inflict unnecessary pain on any animal with consciousness.

(Premise 2) Cows and pigs are animals with consciousness.

(Conclusion) We should not inflict unnecessary pain on cows and pigs.

Comment: While CTW covers a broad range of topics in logic and argumentation theory that are highly relevant for argument reconstruction, it is, in the same time, a bit poor on (sufficiently complex) examples. — But otherwise the argument reconstructions in CTW, as the one above, are impeccable.

Austhink’s Argument Mapping Tutorials

Now compare how Austhink treats arguments.

The shadows of the astronauts and their equipment in the Apollo pictures seem to point in different directions. This suggests that artificial lighting was used and therefore the pictures were taken in a studio on earth.

This piece is reconstructed as follows.

Comment: Depending on how you spell out the logico-semantic structure of the premisses, the first inference (from middle layer to top conclusion) might be valid, but the second inference clearly isn’t. Many Austhink reconstructions seem to lack the level of precision and explicitness I tend to aim at. (One reason might be that various issues like, e.g., ambiguity can be illustrated with invalid or incomplete reconstructions, too. Nonetheless, the tutorials clearly don’t emphasize explicitness and inferential correctness as much as the OLI course and CTW do.)

How the courses relate to Argunet — and some further remarks

1. Argument map — one word, many things. All courses explain how to create argument diagrams. In the first place, these diagrams visualize the internal (inferential) structure of a single argument. The nodes in these diagrams are statements (and not entire arguments or reasons). So, these argument diagrams translate, in Argunet, into detailed reconstructions you’d compile with the argument editor and represent in standard form (i.e., as a list; more on translating argument diagrams to Argunet here). Accordingly, the argument diagrams are not to bo confused with Argunet argument maps, which contain (primarily) entire arguments as boxes and which visualize the dialectical structure of a debate.This is the reason why Austhink’s recommendation “No Reasoning in Boxes” does not apply to Argunet. (It is however correct that a single premiss in an argument, reconstructed in Argunet, should not contain an inference.)
2. Truth tables. The OLI course and the Critical Thinking Web use the truth table method for checking whether (simple) arguments are deductively valid. That is, I believe, inadequate and risks to lead beginning argument analysts astray. To see this, consider the following argument:
   1. If Peter publishes the original paper even though his student has shown it to be flawed, then Peter is a poor scientist.
   2. Peter’s student has not shown Peter’s paper to be flawed.
   3. Thus: Peter is a poor scientist.

   This is a very bad argument. The conclusion does apparently not follow from the premisses (it can be false while the premisses are true). Now, the argument may be formalized as follows:

   1. If (if P then Q) then R.
   2. Not P.
   3. Thus: R.

   And the truthtable method yields that this inference is deductively valid. So the truthtable method gives wrong results and may lead us astray.

   That’s why I don’t teach truth tables in my argumentation courses anymore.

   (The problem arises, of course, in the formalization of the conditional in premiss (2). If you reconstruct it as a strict implication (in terms of modal logic), for example, the conclusion does not follow anymore and logic gives you the right result, again. However, the problem is that OLI and CTW invite us to use propositional logic and, specifically, truth tables in an uncritical way, and that’s what’s highly problematic.)

3. Rules of thumb. The Austhink tutorial #2 establishes a couple of rules of thumbs for argument reconstruction. These, I think, should be relaxed. Contrary to the Golden Rule, for example, there exist excellent arguments with just one premiss (e.g., arguments that provide a counterexample to a universal statement). Moreover, rather than using rules of thumb for identifying hidden assumption, I strongly recommend to unearth implicit premisses against the background of a validity check (as described by CTW).
4. The macrostructure of debate. What distinguishes the Austhink tutorials from OLI and CTW is that they discuss the macrostructure of a debate reconstruction. This is certainly interesting and valuable. I only find that the pyramid rule cannot be applied to reconstructions created with Argunet (and I doubt it’s a good rule when you work with other argument mapping software). There’s simply no reason to think that the generality of a claim or argument is correlated with its dialectic location in a debate. Arguments that rely on highly general principles can both be raised at the centre as well as at the outskirts of a controversy; very special claims (pieces of evidence, counterexamples) can bear directly on the central thesis or concern outward arguments.

The post Three Online Tutorials on Argument Analysis appeared first on Argunet.

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.