A pluralist approach to argument diagramming

There is a long history of argument diagramming mechanisms, attesting to the need for, and popularity of visualizations of reasoning patterns in general. Many of these approaches have given rise to software implementations that serve particular audiences with particular needs, leading to a plethora of such tools. Interesting research questions are posed when exploring the ground between these different approaches to diagramming, and these questions become operational challenges in the context of a research programme aimed at developing ‘pluralist’ argument diagramming software—a single tool that supports multiple different theoretical approaches to the analysis of argument. The Araucaria system aims to meet such pluralist goals, by allowing analysis to be conducted in different styles and then providing for translation between them. In this way, a potential is opened up for interchange between different communities.

[1]  Ch. Perelman,et al.  The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation , 1971 .

[2]  Chris Reed,et al.  Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation , 2004, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools.

[3]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Chris Reed,et al.  Translating Wigmore Diagrams , 2006, COMMA.

[5]  Richard Whately.  Elements of logic , 1827 .

[6]  Leo Groarke,et al.  Deductivism Within Pragma-Dialectics , 1999 .

[7]  J. A. Blair,et al.  Logical Self-Defense , 1977 .

[8]  Charlotte Magnusson,et al.  Developing the art of argumentation - a software approach , 2002 .

[9]  D. Suthers,et al.  Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. , 1995 .

[10]  Chris Reed,et al.  On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments , 2004 .

[11]  Maralee Harrell,et al.  Using Argument Diagramming Software in the Classroom , 2005 .

[12]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Towards an argument interchange format , 2006, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[13]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[14]  Ronald Prescott Loui,et al.  Progress on Room 5: a testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation , 1997, ICAIL '97.

[15]  Bart Verheij.  Virtual Arguments: On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers , 2005 .

[16]  C. Reed,et al.  Translating Toulmin Diagrams: Theory Neutrality in Argument Representation , 2005, Arguing on the Toulmin Model.

[17]  Stephen Adams,et al.  Investigation of the "Convince Me" Computer Environment as a Tool for Critical Argumentation about Public Policy Issues. , 2003 .

[18]  Gerard Vreeswijk,et al.  AVER: Argument Visualization for Evidential Reasoning , 2006, JURIX.

[19]  David A. Schum,et al.  Analysis of Evidence: Frontmatter , 2005 .

[20]  D. Walton.  A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy , 1995 .

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

[22]  D. Schum,et al.  A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence , 1996 .

[23]  Charles R. Twardy.  Argument Maps Improve Critical Thinking , 2004 .

[24]  D. Hitchcock.  Toulmin’s Warrants , 2003 .

[25]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A critical review of argument visualization tools: Do users become better reasoners? , 2006 .