1 / 20

Argument Mapping and Teaching Critical Thinking APA Chicago April 17/08

Explore the use of diagramming software for argument mapping and critical thinking. Learn about programs like Araucaria and Carneades that aid in analyzing and visualizing arguments effectively. Understand the importance of identifying missing premises in arguments. Discover practical reasoning schemes to improve decision-making skills through diagram visualization.

anniecochran
Download Presentation

Argument Mapping and Teaching Critical Thinking APA Chicago April 17/08

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Argument Mapping and Teaching Critical Thinking APA Chicago April 17/08 Douglas Walton CRRAR Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation & Rhetoric: U. of Windsor

  2. Wikipedia: entry on Diagramming Diagramming software consists of computer programs that are used to produce graphical diagrams. [edit] Types of diagramming software User-generated diagrams. As computer users seek to represent visual information, such as a flowchart, tools such as Schematic, SmartDraw, Dia, OmniGraffle, Microsoft Visio, Inspiration, ConceptDraw 7, allow them to express the information in the form of a diagram. Such programs are usually GUI-based and feature WYSIWYG diagram editing. There are also several diagramming tools available for developers, such as JGraph for the Java platform. Some user-generated diagram software is UML compatible, allowing model-driven translation between graphic representation and functional programming languages. Automatically generated diagrams. Programs are available as debugger front-ends, computer-aided software engineering (CASE) tools, or profilers. Diagrams are usually automatically generated by the program.

  3. The Discussion on Tipping

  4. Araucaria Araucaria is a software tool for analyzing arguments. It aids a user in reconstructing and diagramming an argument using a simple point-and-click interface. The software also supports argumentation schemes, and provides a user-customizable set of schemes with which to analyze arguments. Once arguments have been analyzed they can be saved in a portable format called "AML", the Argument Markup Language, which is based on XML. http://www.computing. dundee .ac. uk /staff/creed/araucaria/

  5. Screen Shot of Araucaria Window

  6. Argument from Expert Opinion

  7. Key List for Dr. Phil Example

  8. Diagram of Dr. Phil Example

  9. Carneades: A New Argumentation System • The Carneades system for reasoning with argumentation schemes is a computational model that builds on ontologies from the semantic web to provide a platform for employing argumentation schemes in legal reasoning. The model is an abstract functional specification of a computer program that can be implemented in any programming language. It defines structures for representing various elements of argumentation, and shows how they function together in arguments. Arguments in the Carneades system can be visualized using an argument diagram because the basic structure it uses, the model of the semantic web, is that of the directed labeled graph. • Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken and Douglas Walton, ‘The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof’, Artificial Intelligence, 171, 2007, 875-896.

  10. Argument from Expert Opinion in Carneades

  11. Enthymemes • Enthymemes are arguments with missing premises. • These are premises that were not explicitly stated in the text, but are needed or used in the argument. • Sometimes the missing part can be the conclusion. • Sometimes an argumentation scheme can help to identify a missing part.

  12. Instrumental Scheme for Practical Reasoning • I have a goal G. • Bringing about A is necessary (or sufficient) for me to bring about G. • Therefore, I should (practically ought to) bring about A.

  13. Scheme for Value-based Practical Reasoning • I have a goal G. • G is supported by my set of values, V. • Bringing about A is necessary (or sufficient) for me to bring about G. • Therefore, I should (practically ought to) bring about A.

  14. The Scalpicin Example • Harry has an itchy scalp. He needs Scalpicin. [Explicit argument in TV commercial] • Harry needs something that would make his scalp no longer itchy [assumption]. • Scalpicin would make his scalp no longer itchy [assumption]. • An itchy scalp is a bad condition or problem (negative value) [assumption]. • A bad condition is something that should be removed if possible [assumption].

  15. Diagram for the Scalpicin Example

  16. Three Bases for the Enthymeme • Argumentation Schemes • Common Knowledge • Commitment • Using argument diagrams is a way to bring all three bases together and find the missing premises or conclusions in a given case. • Douglas Walton, ‘The Three Bases for the Enthymeme: A Dialogical Theory’, Journal of AppliedLogic, www.uwinnipeg.ca/~walton

  17. The Animal Freedom Example • Animals in captivity are freer than in nature. • [Claim made: conclusion of argument] • There are no natural predators to kill animals that are in captivity. • [Reason given to support claim: premise] • What are the missing premises?

  18. Implicit Premises • There are natural predators to kill animals that are in nature. • [Implicit assumption based on common knowledge] • If animals are in a place where there are no natural predators to kill them, they are freer than if they are in a place where there are natural predators to kill them. • [Arguer’s commitment]

  19. The Animal Freedom Diagram

  20. References • Glenn Rowe, Fabrizio Macagno, Chris Reed and Doug Walton, ‘Araucaria as a Tool for Diagramming Arguments in Teaching and Studying Philosophy’, Teaching Philosophy, 29, 2006, 111-124. • Chris Reed, Douglas Walton and Fabrizio Macagno, ‘Argument Diagramming in Logic, Law and Artificial Intelligence’, Knowledge Engineering Review, 22, 2007, 87-109. • Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken and Douglas Walton, ‘The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof’, Artificial Intelligence, 171, 2007, 875-896. • Douglas Walton, ‘The Three Bases for the Enthymeme: A Dialogical Theory’, Journal of Applied Logic, to appear. 2008. • All these papers are available as pdf files on the website of Douglas Walton: www.uwinnipeg.ca/~walton

More Related