Talk:Argument map/Archives/2013

Proposed page move

I propose that this page, currently at "Argument maps" should be move to "Argument map" to conform with WP naming conventions regarding plurals of nouns. The page cannot be moved by a non-administrative user because the redirect page Argument map has a history. Grumpyyoungman01 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions: Article title format. SteeleJ (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Explanation needed

Someone needs to write something about how these "argument maps" are contructed and interpreted. They don't make any sense to me. 85.224.198.207 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it really not a stub?

As the stub tag has been removed, I'll not add it unilaterally, but it's really an inadequate treatment of the subject.

Where did they come from? What is the history? Are there competing formats? Who developed this one? Is there a standard maintained by some professional organization? Are improvements planned?

How do you read it? How do you construct it? What are the strengths of this particular design? Its weaknesses? What are the differenced and similarities in the way one represents the main contention, premises, co-premises, objections, rebuttals and lemmas?

Who uses this? What professions are they? Has any group abandoned this in favor of another argument visualization scheme? Does this arrangement have any name other than the generic "Argument map"?

How is it used in teaching? In tackling wicked problems?

I hope you can see why I considered throwing a "stub" tag on this, (before I reviewed the edit history). Mdotley 18:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok so there is more to say about argument mapping, I am just not the person to say it. Thanks for the message. - Grumpyyoungman01 23:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thinking and Reasoning in Human Decision Making

I think the paragraph about Thinking and Reasoning in Human Decision Making: The Method of Argument and Heuristic Analysis is a little biased. It sounds like it was written by the authors or a big fan of the authors. I don't think it belongs in the introduction, as if it is a definitive standard. I've looked at the book and it appears to me to just be another approach to the problem of argument mapping; it doesn't yet appear to be single-handedly defining where argument mapping is going. I will be moving the paragraph out of the introduction and putting it in a Methodology section. In the process, I will replace what I consider to be biased language that assumes with certainty that the book accomplished its objectives. I think that it is instead important to highlight what the authors were trying to do but not make bold assertions that they accomplished it. That kind of language isn't objective. Clan-destine (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

VUE (in Software Section) is Concept mapping more than argument mapping

Hello, when i visited Vue's website, it describes itself as concept-mapping. So why is Vue in this Argument Map / Software Section? It should not be at all in this argument map article.

What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananaketchup (talk • contribs) 07:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A seemingly political page disguised as an argumentation software

The new entry “Argumentations (online collaborative argument mapping)” in the Software section seems to link to a politically oriented page rather than to an online collaborative tool. Does the community agree that the link must be removed? Thanks. (Erhasalz (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

Complete Re-Write Needed--This Seems To Be An Advertisement for A Textbook

This seems to need a thorough re-write. Consider the following claim central to the entry:

"This approach in argument mapping seeks to enable research and analysis of naturalistic human decision making in real life contexts of risk and uncertainty. The techniques involved were first presented by Facione and Facione in Thinking and Reasoning in Human Decision Making: The Method of Argument and Heuristic Analysis (The California Academic Press, 2007). The book described the theory, technique, and application of what appeared to be a new analytical methodology."

This is false. The method of argument diagramming goes back to at least Beardsley in the 1950s, and probably to Watley. The above seems like little more than an advertisement for the Facione and Facione book. William Knorpp (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added reference to Whately. I've also removed the blatant advertising. Parts of it may have a place in a fuller, more balanced article in future. Cimbalom (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As a member of a project on argument mapping I am offering to rewrite this article completely. Does anyone have objections? John Wilkins (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have rewritten this article extensively in conjunction with the editor of an argument mapping textbook. I look forward to comments. John Wilkins (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Straw Man Argument Tree Seems ill formed

Looking at the Straw Man argument tree, it seems that the oppose should have happened as soon as the initial statement was made because it was an ill formed conclusion (as in one of the premisses are likely wrong). Also, looking at the Straw Man article, the whole set up of the argument map does not seem to be a Straw Man argument. Could others who know more on logic look into this and see if this is the case? Septagram (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Both the Strawman argument and the Condorcet argument were ill formed and misleading. I have deleted them John Wilkins (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

add Argunet application to the link list

An application to create argument maps for Windows, Linux and OSX. Last release: 2013-04-18 http://www.argunet.org/editor/#download — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColAflash (talk • contribs) 17:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)