3 ms·
I conceptualise arguments in the same way. I think the requirement of serialising arguments and evidence is bogus for the age we live in and would much rather j
by jarmitage 10y ago
I conceptualise arguments in the same way. I think the requirement of serialising arguments and evidence is bogus for the age we live in and would much rather just give the whole graph to an audience to play with, and then elaborate and discuss as needed. Or heaven forbid the reader could have write access!
- bemmu 10y agoIn the end you have to examine the arguments in some order. By deciding the order you are reducing work for the reader in finding a pleasant traversal of the graph.
- platz 10y agoToulmin's model (data, warrant,backung,claim,rebuttal) reminds us that arguments are generally expressed with qualifiers and rebuttals rather than asserted as absolutes. This lets the reader know how to take the reasoning, how far it is meant to be applied,
- tunesmith 10y agoMaybe you're increasing the work by deciding an order. I've testing this approach several times of actually laying out complex arguments graphviz-style and watching people's eyes as they review it. Everyone seems to traverse the graph differently, depending on which parts challenge them.
- jarmitage 10y agoDo you have a paper about this? Sounds fascinating
- jarmitage 10y agoI think there is certainly room to present graphs replete with pleasant and unpleasant traversals highlighted. It should also be possible to deconstruct misleading traversals.