Argument map

A Rationale map demonstrating the Straw man fallacy

An argument map is a visual representation of the structure of an argument in informal logic. It includes the components of an argument such as a main contention, premises, co-premises, objections, rebuttals and lemmas. Typically an argument map is a “box and arrow” diagram with boxes corresponding to propositions and arrows corresponding to relationships such as evidential support. Argument mapping is often designed to support deliberation over issues, ideas and arguments in Wicked problems.

A Rationale map arguing in favour of Condorcet voting methods

Argument Maps are often used in the teaching of reasoning and critical thinking, and can support the analysis of pros and cons when deliberating over wicked problems.

History and current applications

History

This article is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this article to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (July 2009)

This technique dates back at least to 1826, when a generalized illustration of an argument was published in Richard Whately's Elements of Logic.^[1][2]

In the early 20th century John Henry Wigmore proposed an elaborate charting method in the context of reasoning with legal evidence, known as the Wigmore chart.

In 1958 Stephen Toulmin proposed an argument model that became influential in argumentation theory and its applications.

In 1998 a substantial series of maps released by Robert E. Horn (1998) stimulated widespread interest in the technique.

In 1999 articles in the journal New Scientist, Lingua Franca and the Philosophers' Magazine focused more attention on the project.^[3]

Applications

Argument maps have been applied in many areas, but foremost in educational, academic and business settings.^[4] It has also been proposed that argument mapping has a great potential to evolve how we understand and execute democracy, in reference to the ongoing evolution of e-democracy.^[5]

Standards

Argument Interchange Format

The Argument Interchange Format, AIF, is an international effort to develop a representational mechanism for exchanging argument resources between research groups, tools, and domains using a semantically rich language. AIF-RDF, is the extended ontology represented in the Resource Description Framework Schema (RDFS) semantic language. Though AIF is still something of a moving target, it is settling down.^[6]

See the original draft description (2006) and the full AIF-RDF Ontology Specifications in RDFS format (.rdfs)

Legal Knowledge Interchange Format

The Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF), developed in the European ESTRELLA project, is an XML schema for rules and arguments, designed with the goal of becoming a standard for representing and interchanging policy, legislation and cases, including their justificatory arguments, in the legal domain. LKIF builds on and uses the Web Ontology Language (OWL) for representing concepts and includes a reusable basic ontology of legal concepts.

See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Argument maps

• Argumentation theory
• Concept map
• Universality (philosophy)
• Informal fallacy
• Mind Map
• Tim van Gelder
• Information graphics
• Flow (policy debate)

References

Further reading

• van Gelder, Tim. What is Argument Mapping?
• Facione, P. and Facione N. (2007). Thinking and Reasoning in Human Decision Making: The Method of Argument and Heuristic Analysis.
• Harrell, Maralee (2005) Using Argument Diagramming Software in the Classroom. [1]
• Kirschner, P., Buckingham Shum, S. & Carr, C. (2003) Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making Springer-Verlag, London.
• Twardy, Dr. Charles R. (2003) Argument Maps Improve Critical Thinking. Teaching Philosophy 27:2 June 2004.
• Verheij, B. (2005) Virtual Arguments. On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague.
• Freeman, James B. (1991) Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments[2]
• Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N. & McLaren, B.M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 5(1), 43–102.
• ter Berg, T. et al. (2009) Critical Thinking: Reasoning and Communicating with Rationale (also in Dutch)
• Argumentation Research Group blog
• Argument & Computation – a new research journal
• Argumap Yahoo Group

External links

Argument mapping software

• Araucaria (open source, cross platform/java)
• Argumentative (open source, windows); supports single-user, graphical argumentation
• bCisive (commercial, Windows); supports reasoning and decision making by mapping decision problems, options and arguments.
• Carneades (open source, cross platform/java fx); Argument mapping and evaluation, using proof standards; XML argument exchange
• DeMMaTTouL (open source, Linux, Windows, Mac); argument mapping using Toulmin's Model, export to HTML (Download from Sourceforge)
• Rationale (commercial, Windows); supports simple "Reasoning" maps and more advanced "Analysis" maps

Online, collaborative

• aMap
• Argumentum
• bCisive Online
• Cohere
• Collam (Javascript library for visualizing Argument Maps)
• Debategraph
• truthmapping.com
• Compendium
• Argunet
• MIT's Deliberatorium
• debatewise.com
• CoPe_it

Academic

• The Scholarly Ontologies Project
• argdf.org
• Argument Mapping in Your Subject – resource site for college-level educators integrating argument mapping into their teaching

Conferences

• IJCAI
• AISB
• ArgMAS
• CMNA
• COMMA
• ISSA