Requirements for reflective argument visualization tools: a case for using validity as a normative standard

Authors:
Michael H. G. Hoffmann
Affiliations:
Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Venue:
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008
Year:
2008

Citing 10
Cited 0

The Role of Logic in Computational Models of Legal Argument: A Critical Survey

Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond, Essays in Honour of Robert A. Kowalski, Part II
Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making

Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making
The roots of computer supported argument visualization

Visualizing argumentation
A cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with argument visualization

Visualizing argumentation
Designing argumentation tools for collaborative learning

Visualizing argumentation
Formal systems for persuasion dialogue

The Knowledge Engineering Review
Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems

Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof

Artificial Intelligence
Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web

Artificial Intelligence
Logical argument mapping: a cognitive-change-based method for building common ground

ICPW '07 Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Pragmatic web

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.01

Visualization

Abstract

This paper formulates in the first part some requirements for a certain sort of computational argumentation systems, namely those which are designed for a very specific purpose: to motivate reflection on one's own thinking, and to induce cognitive change. This function of argumentation systems is important for argument-based conflict negotiations, deliberation processes, intercultural communication, text analysis, and learning through argument visualization. In all these situations success is only possible when people are able to change their mind, learn something, or start to reframe well-established ways of perceiving and interpreting things. Based on these requirements, I defend and explain in the second part my decision to use for Logical Argument Mapping---a method specifically designed for supporting reflective argumentation---only argument schemes that are deductively valid.