Logical%20Argument%20Mapping%20(LAM):%20A%20cognitive-change-based%20method%20for%20building%20common%20ground

1
Logical Argument Mapping (LAM)A
cognitive-change-based method for building common
ground

• Michael H.G. Hoffmann

m.hoffmann_at_gatech.edu
November 9, 2007
2
Outline

• Argument visualization State of the art
• Some definitions
• Specific differences of Logical Argument Mapping
  (LAM)
• The goal Building common ground through
  cognitive change in four areas
• Cognitive change and Peirces concepts of
  diagrammatic reasoning and pragmatism
• The compulsory power of diagrams
• Requirements for cognitive-change-based argument
  visualization tools
• The normative standard of LAM Three rules
• The LAM procedure
• Conventions for constructing LAM arguments
• The essential ideas behind LAM
• Analysis of an exemplary argument
• Conclusion
• References

m.hoffmann_at_gatech.edu
3
Argument visualization State of the art in three
areas

• Argumentation in a broader sense (focus on
  clarifying issues, sensemaking, problem solving,
  collaborative learning)
• Belvedere Dan Suthers
• Compendium, ClaiMapper Simon Buckingham Shum
• Dialog mapping Conklin, 2006
• Argumentation in a narrow sense
• Toulmin, 2003 lt1958gt
• Wigmore Diagrams (1931) Rowe Reed, 2006
• Carneades Gordon, Prakken, Walton, 2007
• Rationale van Gelder, 2007
• Araucaria Reed Rowe, 2004
• Systems to translate various argumentation styles
• Argument Interchange Format (AIF) Chesnevar et.
  al., 2006
• World Wide Argument Web (WWAW) Rahwan, Zablith,
  Reed, 2007

4
Some definitions

• Argument An instantiation of an argument
  scheme. The general form of an argument scheme is
  always that of relating at least one reason to a
  claim (various lists of argument schemes can be
  found in Walton, 1995 Pollock, 1995 Katzav
  Reed, 2004 hist. overview Garrson, 2001).
• Logical Argument An argument whose argument
  scheme is a valid rule of inference (modus
  ponens, complete induction, etc.)
• Argumentation A set of arguments and statements
  that support, object to, or evaluate elements of
  those arguments

5
Specific differences of Logical Argument Mapping
(LAM)

• Uses primarily logically valid argument schemes
• Main function To induce cognitive change
• Central idea Logical inference forms establish a
  normative standard for arguments. In her attempts
  to meet this standard, the user is challenged to
  enter a kind of dialectical process that leads
  her back and forth between improving her own
  understanding of the issue in question and the
  way she represents it
• That means LAM is more an interventional than a
  descriptive tool
• Following Thomas Aquinas Before you attack an
  argument, make it as strong as possible
• The focus is on representing subjective (and
  intersubjective) perspectives, not on an
  objectivist reconstruction of some truth. Since
  everybody frames a problem or conflict
  differently, the authorship of an argument is
  important

6
The goal Building common ground through
cognitive change in four areas

1. Facilitated conflict negotiations
2. Deliberative decision makingIn (1.) and (2.) LAM
   can be used to deepen mutual understanding and to
   stimulate cognitive change in cases where mutual
   understanding is a central problem
3. Analysis of texts and narrativesLAM can help the
   analyst to find common ground between her
   interpretation and the materials rationality
4. Intercultural communicationThere is some hope
   that through an intercultural development of LAM
   argument schemes a sort of universal argument
   language can be formed

7
Cognitive change and Peirces concepts of
diagrammatic reasoning and pragmatism

• Diagrammatic reasoning by externalizing our
  reasoning in diagrams, we create something
  (non-ego) that stands up against our
  consciousness. reasoning unfolds when we
  inhibit the active side of our consciousness and
  allow things to act on us (Hull, 1994)
• Diagrams are those icons that are constructed
  by means of a certain representational system
  (Peirce, CP 4.418)
• E.g. an axiomatic system A system of axioms does
  not only define the representational means that
  are available in a field, but it determines also
  the necessary outcome of any operation or
  experimentation we perform within such a system.

8
The compulsory power of diagrams
It is the ontology (elements and relations) and
the rules of the chosen system of representation
that determines which experiments with diagrams
are possible, and their necessary outcome. For
Peirce, this is the foundation of his pragmatism
It is a practical consideration that if one
exerts certain kinds of volition, one will
undergo in return certain compulsory perceptions.
certain lines of conduct will entail certain
kinds of inevitable experiences (CP 5.9).
Kants construction to prove that the sum of the
triangles inner angles equals 180 degrees
9
Requirements for cognitive-change-based argument
visualization tools

• Since a diagram is the more compelling the
  stronger the rules of the representational
  system, and the better we understand and realize
  these rules, we need, first, a standard of
  argumentation that is as strong as possible and,
  second, the readiness of people to pursue the
  goal of meeting this standard as strictly as
  possible.
• Whatever is relevant for the possibility of
  cognitive change, or what might have an impact on
  the acceptability of an argument, must be visible
• To reduce cognitive load, only what is relevant
  should be visible
• To allow the integration into the World Wide
  Argument Web (WWAW) proposed by Rahwan, Zablith,
  Reed (2007), each element of an argumentation
  should be tagged using the ontology of the
  Argument Interchange Format (AIF)

10
The normative standard of LAM Three rules

1. Structure your map according to an argument
   scheme whose logical validity is evident and
   generally accepted
2. Make sure that all your premises (reasons and
   warrants) are true, and provide further arguments
   for their truth if they are not evident
3. Make sure that all your premises are consistent
   with each other

11
The LAM procedure (perform according to the
conventions for constructing LAM arguments)

1. Formulate a claim the central goal of your
   argument, a central thesis
2. Provide a reason for your claim
3. Identify the logical argument scheme that
   provides the most convincing warrant for your
   argument (the function of the warrant is to
   justify the relation between reason and claim)
4. Transform your argument into a logical argument
   by adding what is missing, and by reformulating
   the elements of the argument (claim, reason,
   warrant) in a way that its validity in accordance
   with the scheme becomes evident
5. Consider possible objections against both the
   reason and the warrant. (At this point, the
   compelling character of LAM as a representational
   system plays out. Since we are challenged to
   explicate everything that is needed to get a
   logically valid argument, we can see exactly
   where the argument can be weakened)

12
The LAM procedure (perform according to the
conventions for constructing LAM arguments)

• Decide whether
• to develop new arguments against the objections,
  or
• to reformulate the original argument in a way
  that it can be defended against the objection by,
  e.g.,
• including exceptions into the warrant and
  limiting the scope of the claim (go to step 3.),
  or
• using a different argument scheme (go to step
  3.), or
• redefining the meaning of concepts used in the
  argument (go to step 1. or 2.)
• to give up the whole argument
• In case of 6.c, start again with step 1. or 2.
  in the other cases, do as described in 6.a and b.

13
Conventions for constructing LAM arguments

• Layout
• The structure of a LAM map is determined by
  Western reading habits that direct our attention
  from the top left corner of a page to the right
  and downwards
• Since the understanding of an argument is
  facilitated when we know the central claim from
  the very beginning, this claim is located on top
  of the map in the left corner
• Starting from there, we work to the right and
  downwards to reconstruct the reasons and warrants
  in an ongoing process of argumentation
• Ontology statements and relations
• Statements are presented in two different text
  box forms rounded rectangles and ovals. Based on
  their importance for cognitive change, the
  warrants are highlighted by using oval text
  boxes everything else is presented in rounded
  rectangles
• The ground color specifies a coherent position,
  all statements in this color must be consistent
  objections and other considerations are presented
  in different colors
• Relations are represented by arrows. Each arrow
  must be specified by
• Its function therefore for arguments
  opposes, refutes, rejects, questions,
  supports, etc. for other functions
• By naming the chosen logical argument scheme
  (S-R rule of inference scheme) or a conflict
  scheme (S-C)
• By naming the person/group/institution that
  claims this relation (AU author)

14
The essential ideas behind LAM

• The normative standard of the three rules
  challenges the LAM user to explicate everything
  that is necessary to get a logical argument map,
  and to refine her or his map as long as it takes
  to meet this standard
• This means
• that all those implicit background assumptions
  that determine how we frame an issueand that are
  mostly responsible for problems of mutual
  understandingbecome visible and an object of
  reflection
• that all the parts of an argumentnot only what
  someone explicitly mentionsare on the table and
  can be questioned so that a process of building
  common ground will be motivated
• Visualizing what hinders most in building common
  ground is essential for cognitive change
• From an epistemological point of view, the truth
  of premises in arguments is either evident or has
  to be justified in an ongoing process of
  argumentation. Thus, Logical Argument Mapping
  leads either to assumptions that can be accepted
  as socially shared, or to a certain modesty
  regarding truth claims
• Whatever the outcome might be, it is a process
  that we engage in when mapping the logical
  structure of an argument.

15
Analysis of two exemplary arguments
1.
The map
2. Analysis of an argument about the importance
of jihad (877 KB)
16
Conclusion

• The purpose of Logical Argument Mapping (LAM) is
  to facilitate processes of building common ground
  in three areas
• Conflict negotiations
• Deliberative decision making
• Analysis of texts and narratives
• Intercultural communication
• Its main objective is to motivate cognitive
  change
• If cognitive change is the goal, then more
  important than finding the truth with regard to
  an issue is to promote self-reflexivity
  revealing implicit assumptions and motivating
  both insight into ones own limitations and an
  ongoing process of reframing

17
The previous version of this Powerpoint
presentation is available at http//www.prism.gat
ech.edu/mh327/argument-mapping_114_March07.ppt.
This older version focuses more on the
philosophical background

• Older examples on the web
• Searching for common ground on Hamas (March 31,
  2007 279 KB)
• Hume on causality (March 12, 2007 2.0 MB!)
• Regulating kidney supply (Feb 27, 2007 618 KB)
• Middle East conflict. An Argumentation on the
  sovereignty over al-Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
  in Jerusalem (May 30, 2006 763 KB)

18
References

• Chesnevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan,
  I., Reed, C., Simari, G., et al. (2006). Towards
  an argument interchange format. Knowledge
  Engineering Review, 21(4), 293-316.
• Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue Mapping Building
  Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems.
  Chichester, England Hoboken, NJ John Wiley
  Sons.
• Garrson, B. (2001). Argument Schemes. In F. H. v.
  Eemeren (Ed.), Critical concepts in argumentation
  theory (pp. 81-100). Amsterdam Amsterdam
  University Press.
• Gordon, T. F., Prakken, H., Walton, D. (2007).
  The Carneades model of argument and burden of
  proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15),
  875-896.
• Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2004). How to Get It.
  Diagrammatic Reasoning as a Tool of Knowledge
  Development and its Pragmatic Dimension.
  Foundations of Science, 9(3), 285-305.
• (2005). Logical argument mapping A method for
  overcoming cognitive problems of conflict
  management. International Journal of Conflict
  Management, 16(4), 305335.
• (in press). Cognitive conditions of
  diagrammatic reasoning. Semiotica (special issue
  on "Peircean diagrammatical logic," ed. by J.
  Queiroz and F. Stjernfelt).
• Hull, K. (1994). Why Hanker After Logic?
  Mathematical Imagination, Creativity and
  Perception in Peirce's Systematic Philosophy.
  Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society,
  30, 271295.
• Katzav, J., Reed, C. A. (2004). On
  Argumentation Schemes and the Natural
  Classification of Arguments. Argumentation,
  18(2), 239 - 259.
• Kirschner, P. A., Shum, S. J. B., Carr, C. S.
  (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing Argumentation
  Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational
  Sense-making. London Springer.
• Peirce. (CP). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders
  Peirce. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard UP.
• Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive carpentry. A
  blueprint for how to build a person. Cambridge,
  Mass. MIT Press.
• Rahwan, I., Zablith, F., Reed, C. (2007).
  Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument
  Web. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15),
  897-921.
• Reed, C. A., Rowe, G. W. A. (2004). Araucaria
  Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and
  Representation. International Journal of AI
  Tools, 14(3-4), 961-980.
• Rowe, G. W. A., Reed, C. A. (2006). Translating
  Wigmore Diagrams Electronic Version. Retrieved
  Oct. 18, 2007, from http//babbage.computing.dunde
  e.ac.uk/chris/publications/2006/comma2006-wig.pdf
• Toulmin, S. E. (2003 lt1958gt). The Layout of
  Arguments. In The uses of argument (Updated ed.,
  pp. 87-134). Cambridge, U.K. New York Cambridge
  University Press.
• van Gelder, T. J. (2007). Rationale Making
  People Smarter Through Argument Mapping
  Electronic Version. Law, Probability and Risk,
  submitted, from http//www.austhink.com/pdf/vangel
  der_submitted.pdf
• Walton, D. (1995). Argumentation Schemes for
  Presumptive Reasoning Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Wigmore, J. H. (1931). The Principles of Judicial
  Proof (2nd ed.) Little, Brown Co.