Reflective Argumentation

Theories of argumentation usually focus on arguments as means of persuasion, finding consensus, or justifying knowledge claims. However, the construction and visualization of arguments can also be used to clarify one's own thinking and to stimulate change of this thinking if gaps, unjustified assumptions, contradictions, or open questions can be identified. This is what I call "reflective argumentation." The objective of this paper is, first, to clarify the conditions of reflective argumentation and, second, to discuss the possibilities of argument visualization methods in supporting reflection and cognitive change. After a discussion of the cognitive problems we are facing in conflicts--obviously the area where cognitive change is hardest--the second part will, based on this, determine a set of requirements argument visualization tools should fulfill if their main purpose is stimulating reflection and cognitive change. In the third part, I will evaluate available argument visualization methods with regard to these requirements and talk about their limitations. The fourth part, then, introduces a new method of argument visualization which I call Logical Argument Mapping (LAM). LAM has specifically been designed to support reflective argumentation. Since it uses primarily deductively valid argument schemes, this design decision has to be justified with regard to goals of reflective argumentation. The fifth part, finally, provides an example of how Logical Argument Mapping could be used as a method of reflective argumentation in a political controversy

Searching for Common Ground on Hamas Through Logical Argument Mapping

Robert Fogelin (1985) formulated the thesis “that deep disagreements cannot be resolved through the use of argument, for they undercut the conditions essential to arguing.” The possibility of arguing presupposes “a shared background of beliefs and preferences,” and if such a background is not given, there is no way of “rational” dispute resolution. By contrast to this pessimistic view, I will propose a method that has been developed to overcome difficulties as described by Fogelin

Commentary on: Scott Jacobs\u27 Manipulation as breach of arguer responsibility in \u27Welcome to Obamaville\u27

N/

Diagrammatic Reasoning as the Basis for Developing Concepts: A Semiotic Analysis of Students' Learning about Statistical Distribution

In recent years, semiotics has become an innovative theoretical framework in mathematics education. The purpose of this article is to show that semiotics can be used to explain learning as a process of experimenting with and communicating about one's own representations of mathematical problems. As a paradigmatic example, we apply a Peircean semiotic framework to answer the question of how students learned the concept of "distribution" in a statistics course by "diagrammatic reasoning" and by developing "hypostatic abstractions," that is by forming new mathematical objects which can be used as means for communication and further reasoning. Peirce's semiotic terminology is used as an alternative for notions such as modeling, symbolizing, and reification. We will show that it is a precise instrument of analysis with regard to the complexity of learning and of communication in mathematics classroo

Seeing problems, seeing solutions. Abduction and diagrammatic reasoning in a theory of scientific discovery

This paper sketches a theory of scientific discoveries that is mainly based on two concepts that Charles Peirce developed: abduction and diagrammatic reasoning. Both are problematic. While abduction describes the process of creating a new idea, it does not, on the one hand, explain how this process is possible and, on the other, is not precisely enough defined to distinguish different forms of creating new ideas. Diagrammatic reasoning, the process of constructing relational representations of knowledge areas, experimenting with them, and observing the results, can be interpreted, on the one hand, as a methodology to describe the possibility of discoveries, but its focus is limited to mathematics. The theory sketched here develops an extended version of diagrammatic reasoning as a general theory of scientific discoveries in which eight different forms of abduction play a central role

Learning from People, Things, and Signs

Published in Studies in Philosophy and Education (ISSN: 0039-3746). The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com.Starting from the observation that small children can count more objects than numbers—a phenomenon that I am calling the "lifeworld dependency of cognition"—and an analysis of finger calculation, the paper shows how learning can be explained as the development of cognitive systems. Parts of those systems are not only an individual’s different forms of knowledge and cognitive abilities, but also other people, things, and signs. The paper argues that cognitive systems are first of all semiotic systems since they are dependent on signs and representations as mediators. The two main questions discussed here are how the external world constrains and promotes the development of cognitive abilities, and how we can move from cognitive abilities that are necessarily connected with concrete situations to abstract knowledge

The curse of the Hegelian heritage: "Dialectic," "contradiction," and "dialectical logic" in Activity Theory

Referring to the concept of "dialectic" has been a promising approach for Activity Theorists to explain development and learning both in societies and in individuals. "Contradictions," for example, are understood as the "driving force" of development. Often "dialectic" is supposed to work as the theory's most basic foundation. Open questions of this approach, however, are mostly answered simply by hinting at the authorities of Hegel and Marx. This paper's objective is to show that these "philosophical roots" of Activity Theory themselves need a critical, philosophical examination before they can be used as a theoretical basis

Exploring epistemological approaches to argumentation: from evaluation standards to the practice of argumentation

The paper distinguishes, in its first part, different epistemological approaches to argumentation theory and criticizes those who focus on non-relative criteria of argument evaluation. The second part describes the basic idea of an alternative epistemological approach that focuses on improving the practice of argumentation by a representational tool called Logical Argument Mapping (LAM)

Power and Limits of Dynamical Systems Theory in Conflict Analysis

Presented at IACM 2007 (International Association for Conflict Management).One of the most exciting new approaches in conflict research applies Dynamical Systems Theory (DST) to explain the devastating dynamics of intractable conflicts. This paper describes what makes this approach so powerful, and discusses some of its limitations that become visible in the mathematical models of DST that are available so far. In its final section, some possible directions for further research are sketched with a special focus on identifying the elements of a conflict whose dynamics could be reconstructed by means of Dynamical Systems Theory