Enhancing and Augmenting Human Reasoning

1. Enhancing and Augmenting Human Reasoning Tim van Gelder Draft, 2003

2. OVERVIEW OF SOME KEY IDEAS • We humans are the ones who play the game of giving and asking for reasons for our attitudes and performances; • In this paper, van Gelder explains two major functions of mapping software for argument mapping, enhancing and augmenting reasoning;

3. Enhancing • Argument mapping enhances reasoning by strengthening peoples’ intrinsic reasoning skills, skills we deploy unconsciously when reasoning;

4. Augmenting • Argument mapping augments reasoning to help people perform more effectively. Here mapping tools are used to extend our intrinsic or unaided capacities.

5. Skills of General Informal Reasoning and Argumentation • van Gelder claims that the evidence points to education failing in its central mission, to teach students to think (kuhn, 1991); • Kuhn’s research found that many can form opinions but few can exhibit skill in reasoning and argument in relation to their opinions;

6. evidence • van Gelder sums up studies that do not find evidence for courses having much positive effect [even courses dedicated to developing critical thinking, reasoning, informal logic] (McMillan, 1987, Pascarella, 1989); • Conventional instructional techniques are largely (with some mixed results) or typically ineffective;

7. Diagramming • Diagramming arguments is an old idea and has been used for decades in courses on informal logic; • What current software allows that is new is • Rapid assembly of diagrams • Ability to modify the structures easily • Repositioning of the map to view it in various ways • Evaluation of parts of the argument with colors • Distribution of maps, copying into documents, etc.

8. Does Argument Mapping work? • van Gelder reports that in a series of pre/post test studies, using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test, students show a 20% increase in scores, a substantial effect size; • These gains hold up over time—tested a year later the post test scores hold;

9. SOME WAYS REASONING IS AUGMENTED DURING GROUP DEBATE—based on anecdotal evidence • PARTICIPANTS ABLE TO COMPREHEND MORE OF THE RELEVANT ARGUMENTS—DUE TO REPRESENTED THE MAP OUTSIDE THE HEAD; • ALL PARTICIPANTS ARE ATTENDING TO THE ONE ARGUMENT MAP; • CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DEBATE ARE TARGETED AT A SPECIFIC PLACE ON THE MAP; • FOCUS IS ON THE MAP RATHER THAN PEOPLE; • COLLECTIVE MEMORY OF THE DEBATE;

10. EMBODIED REASON • REASONING SUPPORTED BY ARGUMENT MAPPING IS MORE LIKE PLAYING WITH BLOCKS IN THE KINDERGARTEN OR PLAYING WITH ROCKS IN THE GARDEN OR CHASING PREY ON THE SAVANNAH THAN IS REASONING SUPPORTED BY SPOKEN OR WRITTEN PROSE; • THE ABSTRACTION AND COMPLEXITY OF EVIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IS TRANSLATED INTO CONCRETE FORMS—PLAYING TO OUR PRIMITIVE CAPACITIES;

11. Argument Mapping, Rationality and Human Nature • We humans give and ask for reasons; • By giving and asking for reasons for our attitudes and performances, we identify ourselves as rational; • Giving and asking for reasons is physically mediated; • We escape the tyranny of prose as the obligatory medium of argumentative expression when we use computer supported argument mapping (CSAM); • CSAM is emerging as the most effective means of making explicit our reasoning and deliberations;