Finding and Interpreting Arguments: An Important Challenge for Humanities Computing and Scholarly Practice

Skillful identification and interpretation of arguments is a cornerstone of learning, scholarly activity and thoughtful civic engagement. These are difficult skills for people to learn, and they are beyond the reach of current computational methods from artificial intelligence and machine learning, despite hype suggesting the contrary. In previous work, we have attempted to build systems that scaffold these skills in people. In this paper we reflect on the difficulties posed by this work, and we argue that it is a serious challenge which ought to be taken up within the digital humanities and related efforts to computationally support scholarly practice. Network analysis, bibliometrics, and stylometrics, essentially leave out the fundamental humanistic skill of charitable argument interpretation because they touch very little on the meanings embedded in texts. We present a problematisation of the design space for potential tool development, as a result of insights about the nature and form of arguments in historical texts gained from our attempt to locate and map the arguments in one corner of the Hathi Trust digital library.

[1]  Marie-Francine Moens,et al.  Argumentation mining: the detection, classification and structure of arguments in text , 2009, ICAIL.

[2]  Floris Bex,et al.  AIFdb: Infrastructure for the Argument Web , 2012, COMMA.

[3]  Edward N. Zalta,et al.  A Computationally-Discovered Simplification of the Ontological Argument , 2011 .

[4]  Marie-Francine Moens,et al.  Argumentation mining , 2011, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[5]  Marie-Francine Moens,et al.  Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts , 2007, ICAIL.

[6]  Jennifer Edmond,et al.  How Scholars Read Now: When the Signal Is the Noise , 2018, Digit. Humanit. Q..

[7]  Erik C. W. Krabbe,et al.  Argumentation and Artificial Intelligence , 2020 .

[8]  Andrew Ravenscroft,et al.  Promoting thinking and conceptual change with digital dialogue games , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[9]  Katy Börner,et al.  Mapping knowledge domains , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  M. Dawkins,et al.  Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and Behavior , 1988 .

[11]  Chris Reed,et al.  OVA+: an Argument Analysis Interface , 2014, COMMA.

[12]  W. Heron The Animal Mind: A Textbook of Comparative Psychology (3rd Edition). , 2022 .

[13]  Roger Hartley,et al.  Reclaiming thinking : dialectic , dialogic and learning in the digital age , 2007 .

[14]  Colin Allen,et al.  Visualization Techniques for Topic Model Checking , 2015, AAAI.

[15]  Satoshi Sekine,et al.  A survey of named entity recognition and classification , 2007 .

[16]  Timothy R. Tangherlini,et al.  Trawling in the Sea of the Great Unread: Sub-corpus topic modeling and Humanities research , 2013 .

[17]  Rachel M. Pilkington,et al.  Investigation by Design: Developing Dialogue Models to Support Reasoning and Conceptual Change , 2000 .

[18]  S. Ainsworth DeFT: A Conceptual Framework for Considering Learning with Multiple Representations. , 2006 .

[19]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  LDA-based document models for ad-hoc retrieval , 2006, SIGIR.

[20]  Cory P. Knobel,et al.  Understanding Infrastructure: Dynamics, Tensions, and Design , 2007 .

[21]  Chris Reed,et al.  Multi-level computational methods for interdisciplinary research in the HathiTrust Digital Library , 2017, PloS one.

[22]  Ramon Prudencio S. Toledo Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making , 2005, Inf. Vis..

[23]  James R. Curran,et al.  Accurate Argumentative Zoning with Maximum Entropy models , 2009 .

[24]  Gregor Heinrich,et al.  A Generic Approach to Topic Models , 2009, ECML/PKDD.

[25]  Kun Zhao,et al.  Topic Modeling the Hàn diăn Ancient Classics , 2017, arXiv.org.

[26]  Eileen Scanlon,et al.  Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC , 2004, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[27]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Latent Dirichlet Allocation , 2001, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[28]  Reedchris,et al.  Towards an argument interchange format , 2006 .

[29]  Chris Reed,et al.  Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence , 2007, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[30]  Chris Reed,et al.  From Big Data to Argument Analysis and Automated Extraction: A Selective Study of Argument in the Philosophy of Animal Psychology from the Volumes of the Hathi Trust Collection , 2014 .

[31]  T. Landauer,et al.  A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. , 1997 .

[32]  Andrew Ravenscroft,et al.  Designing argumentation for conceptual development , 2000, Comput. Educ..

[33]  Paul Thompson,et al.  Dialogic Education and Technology: Expanding the Space of Learning , 2009, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[34]  A. Ravenscroft,et al.  Dialogue and Connectivism: A New Approach to Understanding and Promoting Dialogue-Rich Networked Learning , 2011 .

[35]  Simone Teufel,et al.  Robust Argumentative Zoning for Sensemaking in Scholarly Documents , 2009, NLP4DL/AT4DL.

[36]  Dorota Glowacka,et al.  Using Topic Models to Assess Document Relevance in Exploratory Search User Studies , 2017, CHIIR.

[37]  Chris Reed,et al.  Mining Arguments From 19th Century Philosophical Texts Using Topic Based Modelling , 2014, ArgMining@ACL.

[38]  Andrew Ravenscroft,et al.  Investigating and promoting educational argumentation: towards new digital practices , 2008 .