Argument Mapping: Theory, Software, Application

1. Argument Mapping – Theory, Software, Practice Presentation for the PhD Workshop “Discourse Analysis”, 04.12.2014 FrederikeNeuber, KIT

2. Overview 0 Discourse reconstruction? 1 Theoretical Background 2 Software “Argunet” 3 Sample application 4 Team 5 FAQ Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

3. 0Discourse Reconstruction? Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

4. Arguments in discourse • A discoursemeanssomesortofcommunicationbetweenproponents. • Especiallyscientificcommunication must applytocertainstandards. • A scientist must argueforhisclaim. He putsforwardarguments. • Arguments relatetoeachother. Theyarestructured. • Thoseargumentsandthestructuretheybuildcanbereconstructed. • Metaphorsand Frames arearguments, too! • Techno-fix • Climateis a patient • Plan B FrederikeNeuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

5. 1Theoretical Background Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

6. 1.a Theoretical Background and Argumentation Theory Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

7. A common Problem... Much can go wrong in discussions: Assumptions of an argument remain unclear and implicit; Instead of supporting (reasoning) for a claim, discussants just state or contradict; Objections only supposedly attack a position; Adeemed support does not even back the central claim; The relation between the arguments and/or central claim remains unclear; ... Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

8. Aims of argument analysis Aims of argument analysis are: Identifying arguments and central theses Clarifying argumentative relations (implicit premises, aims of argumentation); Giving a neutral overview; Structuring the debate. NO aims of argument analysis are: Resolving a dispute, deciding upon the debate; Stipulate what proponents should or should not believe. Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

9. A simple example Anna: "Why do you think Mary has been at the crime scene?" Ben: "Laura says she has seen and talked to her. And I take her, I mean Laura, to be a credible witness.” Bens Argumentation can be reconstructed as a premise-conclusion-structure… Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

10. Reconstruction of the example (1) Laura says she has seen Mary and talked to her at the crime scene. Laura is a credible source. Thus: Laura has seen Mary and talked to her at he crime scene. Thus: Mary has been at the crime scene Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

11. Reconstruction of the example (2) Laura says she has seen Mary and talked to her at the crime scene. Laura is a credible source. When a person states that p, and when said person is a credible source, then p is true. Thus (from 1-3): Laura has seen Mary and talked to her at he crime scene. Thus (from 4): Mary has been at the crime scene Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

12. Reconstruction of the example (3) Laura says she has seen Mary and talked to her at the crime scene. Laura is a credible source. When a person states that p, and when said person is a credible source, then p is true. Thus (from 1-3): Laura has seen Mary and talked to her at he crime scene. One person A can only talk to another person B when B is at the same place as A. Thus (from 4,5): Mary has been at the crime scene Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

13. Dialectical Relations Arguments have different dialectical relations: • The most important dialectical relations are Support and Attack: • An argument A supports an argument B if and only if the conclusion of A is identical to one premise of argument B. • An argument A attacks an argument B fi and only if the conclusion of A contradicts one oft he premises of B. • The arguments of a debate and their relation are called “dialectical structure”. Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

14. Support Attack Dialectical Relations in a dialecticalstructure Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

15. Reconstruction as a hermeneutic method • The reconstruction of an argument or of a complex debate is an interpretation! • It is • under-determinated • preliminary • incomplete • and it could always be different! Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

16. Reconstructing expertise • Arguments can be sketched or reconstructed in detail. • In order to reconstruct an argument in detail, the reconstructer needs to have certain expertise: • Formal logic • Logic-semantic analysis of natural language arguments • Topic of argumentation (e.g. Ethics, Metaphysics, etc.) Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

17. 1.B Theoretical background of argument evaluation Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

18. Reconstruction vs. Evaluation of a debate • Reconstruction: • clarifying the argumentative relations and make logical structure transparent. • Evaluation: • Identify Positions of proponent and examine their coherence ; • Identifying theses or arguments of which there is the most constent or dissent. • Calculating degrees of justification. Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

19. Identifying positionsand Coherence Based on the detail-reconstruction, positions can be identified on several levels of the debate: • Coarse-grained on the argument-level: Arguments and theses are accepted or rejected. • Fine-grained on the sentence-level: Sentences are assigned truth values. Coherence of a position In order to be coherent, a position has to fulfill certain standards (minimal standards of rationality): • On the argument-level: If an argument is accepted, all attacking arguments must be rejected. • On the sentence-level. • If all premises of an argument are held true, the conclusion must be held true also. • sentences that contradict each other are assigned oppositional truth values. Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

20. Dialecticalstructurewithsentenc-basedpositions Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

21. Dialecticalstructurewithargument-basedpositions Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

22. 2 Software “Argunet” Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

23. Concept Server-Client-Software in order to reconstruct in collaboration; No argument evaluation, just reconstruction; Both sketch and detail reconstruction possible; Rather a tool for reconstruction experts. Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

24. Show meArgunet!! Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

25. 3 Sample application Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

26. 3.a Education and research Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

27. 3.a Education and research Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

28. 3.b Policy-analysis and -advise Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

29. 4 Team Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

30. Team GregorBetz, KIT, Institute for Philosophie Sebastian Cacean, KIT, ITAS Christian Voigt, KIT, ITAS Alumnis: David Schneider, Helen Bohse, Bianca Drefahl Contributionsfrom: Christoph Doll, David Hopf Formoreinformation: www.argunet.org Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

31. 5 Frequently Asked Questions Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

32. FAQ • What do we gain from argument mapping? • Isn’t it too much to expect everyone always to argue logically correct and rationally? • Can different stances of stakeholders be represented, without compromising the neutrality oft he debate? • How do we know who won the debate? • What are the limits of argument mapping? Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

33. What do we gain from argument mapping? (1) Questions like these can be answered when having a transparent reconstruction: • Do the arguments suffice the minimal condition (i.e. does the conclusion follow from the premises? • What theses are actually in the focus of the debate? And what arguments are supporting or attacking them? • How do the arguments relate to one another? Is there maybe a fallacie (e.g. straw man)? • What different coherent positions are there? • What arguments/thesis does a proponent buy indirectly, when she holds a certain argument true? • What arguments /theses does she have to reject? • What implicit assumptions are relevant for the debate? Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

34. What do we gain from argument mapping? (2) Besides those questions, argument mapping helps structuring the debate: What arguments/sentences are part of the consensus? Which are controversial? Which are relevant for the central claim and thus need more back up? Have there been misunderstandings or ambiguities in the debate so far? Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

35. Isn’t it too much to expect everyone always to argue logically correct and rationally? (1) One might suspect, that the reconstruction of an argument presupposes criteria of rationality that No one satisfies and No one should satisfy. Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

36. Isn’t it too much to expect everyone always to argue logically correct and rationally? (2) No! Because … we don’t presuppose a certain logical system, that the proponents seemingly adopt. We just assume that there is a common understanding of what “that follows from that” means. That is enough to reconstruct a sentence as an argument pro or con a thesis. (No matter whether this turns out to be is true/plausible or false/implausible). We also assume, that deductive validity is equal to the common understanding of “that follows from that”. This however is only relevant to the internal structure of the dialectical structure, and does not request any logical expertise of the proponents. Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

37. Can different stances of stakeholders be represented, without compromising the neutrality oft he debate? • Different stances or opinions are represented as positions in the debate. • Positions assign sentences truth values. • Moreover, different interests and values can themselves be premises in the debate, when they are relevant fort he debate. • The reconstruction remains neutral: There is no judgment about whether a premise actually is true or false, or what arguments are good or bad. Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

38. How do we know who won the debate? • We don’t! • Especially the number of pro or con arguments has nothing to do with the quality of a certain position. • Who the “winner” of the argument is can only be evaluated when the sentences are assigned truth values (and that’s not our job anymore). Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application

39. What are the limits of argument mapping? Whenever someone states a sentence and tries o back his claim with other sentences, there is an argument that we can reconstruct. Rhetorical, manipulative or strategic aspects are not part of the map. Motivations of the proponents are not part of the map, only if they themselves play an argumentative role. Frederike Neuber - Argument Mapping: Theory, Software and Application