46 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
46 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: "Argument map"
|
|
chunk: 2/4
|
|
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map"
|
|
category: "reference"
|
|
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
|
date_saved: "2026-05-05T14:44:34.364572+00:00"
|
|
instance: "kb-cron"
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
Though ① [people who talk about the "social significance" of the arts don't like to admit it], ② [music and painting are bound to suffer when they are turned into mere vehicles for propaganda]. For ③ [propaganda appeals to the crudest and most vulgar feelings]: (for) ④ [look at the academic monstrosities produced by the official Nazi painters]. What is more important, ⑤ [art must be an end in itself for the artist], because ⑥ [the artist can do the best work only in an atmosphere of complete freedom].
|
|
Beardsley said that the conclusion in this example is statement ②. Statement ④ needs to be rewritten as a declarative sentence, e.g. "Academic monstrosities [were] produced by the official Nazi painters." Statement ① points out that the conclusion isn't accepted by everyone, but statement ① is omitted from the diagram because it doesn't support the conclusion. Beardsley said that the logical relation between statement ③ and statement ④ is unclear, but he proposed to diagram statement ④ as supporting statement ③.
|
|
|
|
More recently, philosophy professor Maralee Harrell recommended the following procedure:
|
|
|
|
Identify all the claims being made by the author.
|
|
Rewrite them as independent statements, eliminating non-essential words.
|
|
Identify which statements are premises, sub-conclusions, and the main conclusion.
|
|
Provide missing, implied conclusions and implied premises. (This is optional depending on the purpose of the argument map.)
|
|
Put the statements into boxes and draw a line between any boxes that are linked.
|
|
Indicate support from premise(s) to (sub)conclusion with arrows.
|
|
|
|
=== Diagramming as thinking ===
|
|
Argument maps are useful not only for representing and analyzing existing writings, but also for thinking through issues as part of a problem-structuring process or writing process. The use of such argument analysis for thinking through issues has been called "reflective argumentation".
|
|
An argument map, unlike a decision tree, does not tell how to make a decision, but the process of choosing a coherent position (or reflective equilibrium) based on the structure of an argument map can be represented as a decision tree.
|
|
|
|
== History ==
|
|
|
|
=== The philosophical origins and tradition of argument mapping ===
|
|
|
|
In the Elements of Logic, published in 1826 and issued in many subsequent editions, Archbishop Richard Whately gave probably the first form of an argument map, introducing it with the suggestion that "many students probably will find it a very clear and convenient mode of exhibiting the logical analysis of the course of argument, to draw it out in the form of a Tree, or Logical Division".
|
|
However, the technique did not become widely used, possibly because for complex arguments, it involved much writing and rewriting of the premises.
|
|
|
|
Legal philosopher and theorist John Henry Wigmore produced maps of legal arguments using numbered premises in the early 20th century, based in part on the ideas of 19th century philosopher Henry Sidgwick who used lines to indicate relations between terms.
|
|
|
|
=== Anglophone argument diagramming in the 20th century ===
|
|
Dealing with the failure of formal reduction of informal argumentation, English speaking argumentation theory developed diagrammatic approaches to informal reasoning over a period of fifty years.
|
|
Monroe Beardsley proposed a form of argument diagram in 1950. His method of marking up an argument and representing its components with linked numbers became a standard and is still widely used. He also introduced terminology that is still current describing convergent, divergent and serial arguments.
|
|
|
|
Stephen Toulmin, in his groundbreaking and influential 1958 book The Uses of Argument, identified several elements to an argument which have been generalized. The Toulmin diagram is widely used in educational critical teaching. Whilst Toulmin eventually had a significant impact on the development of informal logic he had little initial impact and the Beardsley approach to diagramming arguments along with its later developments became the standard approach in this field. Toulmin introduced something that was missing from Beardsley's approach. In Beardsley, "arrows link reasons and conclusions (but) no support is given to the implication itself between them. There is no theory, in other words, of inference distinguished from logical deduction, the passage is always deemed not controversial and not subject to support and evaluation". Toulmin introduced the concept of warrant which "can be considered as representing the reasons behind the inference, the backing that authorizes the link".
|
|
Beardsley's approach was refined by Stephen N. Thomas, whose 1973 book Practical Reasoning In Natural Language introduced the term linked to describe arguments where the premises necessarily worked together to support the conclusion. However, the actual distinction between dependent and independent premises had been made prior to this. The introduction of the linked structure made it possible for argument maps to represent missing or "hidden" premises. In addition, Thomas suggested showing reasons both for and against a conclusion with the reasons against being represented by dotted arrows. Thomas introduced the term argument diagram and defined basic reasons as those that were not supported by any others in the argument and the final conclusion as that which was not used to support any further conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Michael Scriven further developed the Beardsley-Thomas approach in his 1976 book Reasoning. Whereas Beardsley had said "At first, write out the statements...after a little practice, refer to the statements by number alone" Scriven advocated clarifying the meaning of the statements, listing them and then using a tree diagram with numbers to display the structure. Missing premises (unstated assumptions) were to be included and indicated with an alphabetical letter instead of a number to mark them off from the explicit statements. Scriven introduced counterarguments in his diagrams, which Toulmin had defined as rebuttal. This also enabled the diagramming of "balance of consideration" arguments.
|
|
In 1998 a series of large-scale argument maps released by Robert E. Horn stimulated widespread interest in argument mapping.
|
|
|
|
=== Development of computer-supported argument visualization === |