6 ms·
It would have been helpful to me, if the page would try to explain and "sell" not just the tool, but the idea of argument maps too (e.g. in a few initial paragr
by szemet 7y ago
It would have been helpful to me, if the page would try to explain and "sell" not just the tool, but the idea of argument maps too (e.g. in a few initial paragraph).
I've met the concept of argument map for the first time, and had to google it to gain some understanding:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map
- shusson 7y ago> if the page would try to explain and "sell" It's a specific tool for argumentation. I don't think they need to explain what argumentation is.
- aasasd 7y agoSo if I say that outliners and mind maps are for organizing ideas, then by knowing what ideas are you automatically know how to use outliners and mind maps?
- shusson 7y agoNo but if it is really sunny outside and I do some research and discover the concept of a hat. Then later when I google for a hat, I know what a hat is, and I am not confused by websites that are selling hats.
- jackpark 7y agoThere is an open source "concept map" platform known at Compendium available from the Open University's Knowledge Media Institute. It was invented precisely to help tame conversations in a conceptual space known as "issue-based information systems". Let me explain: Compendium is for "dialogue mapping", not "argument mapping". Dialogue mapping grew up in the fast-moving arenas of town hall planning meetings which frequently turn wicked ("over my dead body you'll put that freeway through this town"). There, the cognitive overhead of recording what is being uttered must be at an absolute minimum. Jeff Conklin invented the approach and described it in a paper about "gIBIS", and that approach eventually became the open source Java platform Compendium. As an alternative to explore this space, consider visiting http://debategraph.org/ http://debategraph.org/
- davnicwil 7y agoI'd say that's precisely what they need to do, before explaining anything else. First rule of explaining anything in an understandable way: define your terms.
- derefr 7y agoArgument maps are not “a tool for argumentation”; they’re not intended to be used in every context in which people argue. If they were, we all probably would have heard of them already at some point, if just as “that weird thing I see no reason to use.” Argument maps are intended to either analyze or formalize the sides of an argument, in one of two contexts: • contexts like civic policy, where a third party (e.g. an analyst working for a politician) wants to create an executive summary of a debate for consumption by a policy-maker, usually by watching/reading, and then “digesting”, a lot of arguments. (In this context, it also helps to be able to merge argument maps, efficiently unifying nodes that are semantically similar while keeping their dissimilar children.) • In cases of formal debate, where the goal of the debaters is, as often as not, not for one side to dominate the other with rhetoric, but rather for everyone to “adversarially collaborate” to discover the complete shape of the debate—to map all the pros and cons—so that they can then go over the mapped argument and judge its merits for themselves, rather than working form the incomplete information they started with (usually just the information held by their “side.”) Combine these two, and you get “barristers on both sides of a court, working for a judge as analysts to help them understand both sides of a case”—as in truth-discovering (rather than guilt-deciding) judicial systems like Scotland’s; or as in grand juries or coroner’s inquests. (You can also use argument maps in your personal life, if you want to be really objective about deciding whether to believe something. But the contexts in which there are so many good arguments on both sides that you’d get a different answer than the one you’d get by just listening to the debate with an open mind, would be rare. For a cute analogy, they’re “asymptotes of discourse”: places where you’re dividing infinite evidence by infinite evidence, and so need something more powerful than regular mental arithmetic to get a solution.)
- tenacious_tuna 7y ago> judicial systems like Scotland's I'm unfamiliar, but very curious--could you elaborate?
- arethuza 7y agoSounds like the difference between common law and civil law? https://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/blog/common-law-vs-civil-law/ https://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/blog/common-law-vs-civil-law/ Not sure that Scotland really qualifies as a civil law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law
- voronoff 7y agoI think this image from elsewhere in the comments does a reasonable job of showing both what an argument map looks like and why you might want one. http://www.argunet.org/wordpress-argunet-2/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/argdown-vscode-semmelweis-1.png http://www.argunet.org/wordpress-argunet-2/wp-content/upload...