Organizational Unit:

School of Public Policy

Permanent Link

https://hdl.handle.net/1853/70716

Parent Organization

Organizational Unit

Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts

Includes Organization(s)

Organizational Unit

Technology Policy and Assessment Center

ArchiveSpace Name Record

https://finding-aids.library.gatech.edu/agents/corporate_entities/1033

Full item page

Publication Search Results

Now showing 1 - 9 of 9

Visualizing Ethical Controversies and Positions by Logical Argument Mapping (LAM) – A Manual

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-05) Hoffmann, Michael H. G.

Ethical decisions are often not clear-cut. Most of the time it is possible to argue for more than one "right thing to do," especially if there is a variety of ethical principles or conflicting arguments. In order both to understand those arguments and to participate in deliberation and communication on ethically relevant issues, we need some methods, tools, and the practical skills to use them. Such a method is Logical Argument Mapping (LAM). Its main functions are to facilitate the structuring of complex knowledge areas and belief systems, and to stimulate reflection and creativity. This manual describes the rules, the mapping conventions, and the procedure of Logical Argument Mapping. It describes the processes of argument construction and evaluation; the development of classifications that are necessary to structure a problem field; the integration of objections, questions, comments, and supporting data; and suggestions for the revision and improvements of argumentations. For these purposes, it provides lists of argument schemes, typology schemes, conflict schemes, and argument revision schemes.
Reflective Argumentation

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008-12) Hoffmann, Michael H. G.

Theories of argumentation usually focus on arguments as means of persuasion, finding consensus, or justifying knowledge claims. However, the construction and visualization of arguments can also be used to clarify one's own thinking and to stimulate change of this thinking if gaps, unjustified assumptions, contradictions, or open questions can be identified. This is what I call "reflective argumentation." The objective of this paper is, first, to clarify the conditions of reflective argumentation and, second, to discuss the possibilities of argument visualization methods in supporting reflection and cognitive change. After a discussion of the cognitive problems we are facing in conflicts--obviously the area where cognitive change is hardest--the second part will, based on this, determine a set of requirements argument visualization tools should fulfill if their main purpose is stimulating reflection and cognitive change. In the third part, I will evaluate available argument visualization methods with regard to these requirements and talk about their limitations. The fourth part, then, introduces a new method of argument visualization which I call Logical Argument Mapping (LAM). LAM has specifically been designed to support reflective argumentation. Since it uses primarily deductively valid argument schemes, this design decision has to be justified with regard to goals of reflective argumentation. The fifth part, finally, provides an example of how Logical Argument Mapping could be used as a method of reflective argumentation in a political controversy.
Analyzing Framing Processes by Means of Logical Argument Mapping

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008) Hoffmann, Michael H. G.

The primary goal of this chapter is to present a new method—called Logical Argument Mapping (LAM)—for the analysis of framing processes. To justify this approach, I start with a distinction between boundary setting, sensemaking, and meaning construction as three forms or aspects of framing, and argue that crucial for the resolution of framebased controversies is our ability to deal with entire "webs" of mutually supporting beliefs. LAM allows us to visualize the inferential structure of those webs of belief in a holistic manner. The method is introduced by means of an exemplary analysis of two conflicting interpretations of how the international community should deal with Hamas after its election victory in 2006.
Power and Limits of Dynamical Systems Theory in Conflict Analysis

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2007-04) Hoffmann, Michael H. G.

One of the most exciting new approaches in conflict research applies Dynamical Systems Theory (DST) to explain the devastating dynamics of intractable conflicts. This paper describes what makes this approach so powerful, and discusses some of its limitations that become visible in the mathematical models of DST that are available so far. In its final section, some possible directions for further research are sketched with a special focus on identifying the elements of a conflict whose dynamics could be reconstructed by means of Dynamical Systems Theory.
Cognitive Conditions of Diagrammatic Reasoning

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2007-02) Hoffmann, Michael H. G.

In the first part of this paper, I delineate Peirce's general concept of diagrammatic reasoning from other usages of the term that focus either on diagrammatic systems as developed in logic and AI or on reasoning with mental models. The main function of Peirce's form of diagrammatic reasoning is to facilitate individual or social thinking processes in situations that are too complex to be coped with exclusively by internal cognitive means. I provide a diagrammatic definition of diagrammatic reasoning that emphasizes the construction of, and experimentation with, external representations based on the rules and conventions of a chosen representation system. The second part starts with a summary of empirical research regarding cognitive effects of working with diagrams and a critique of approaches that use 'mental models' to explain those effects. The main focus of this section is, however, to elaborate the idea that diagrammatic reasoning should be conceptualized as a case of 'distributed cognition.' Using the mathematics lesson described by Plato in his Meno, I analyze those cognitive conditions of diagrammatic reasoning that are relevant in this case.
Learning from People, Things, and Signs

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2006-11-15) Hoffmann, Michael H. G.

Starting from the observation that small children can count more objects than numbers—a phenomenon that I am calling the "lifeworld dependency of cognition"—and an analysis of finger calculation, the paper shows how learning can be explained as the development of cognitive systems. Parts of those systems are not only an individual’s different forms of knowledge and cognitive abilities, but also other people, things, and signs. The paper argues that cognitive systems are first of all semiotic systems since they are dependent on signs and representations as mediators. The two main questions discussed here are how the external world constrains and promotes the development of cognitive abilities, and how we can move from cognitive abilities that are necessarily connected with concrete situations to abstract knowledge.
Seeing problems, seeing solutions. Abduction and diagrammatic reasoning in a theory of scientific discovery

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2006-08-28) Hoffmann, Michael H. G.

This paper sketches a theory of scientific discoveries that is mainly based on two concepts that Charles Peirce developed: abduction and diagrammatic reasoning. Both are problematic. While abduction describes the process of creating a new idea, it does not, on the one hand, explain how this process is possible and, on the other, is not precisely enough defined to distinguish different forms of creating new ideas. Diagrammatic reasoning, the process of constructing relational representations of knowledge areas, experimenting with them, and observing the results, can be interpreted, on the one hand, as a methodology to describe the possibility of discoveries, but its focus is limited to mathematics. The theory sketched here develops an extended version of diagrammatic reasoning as a general theory of scientific discoveries in which eight different forms of abduction play a central role.
Exploring epistemological approaches to argumentation: from evaluation standards to the practice of argumentation

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2005-12-13) Hoffmann, Michael H. G.

The paper distinguishes, in its first part, different epistemological approaches to argumentation theory and criticizes those who focus on non-relative criteria of argument evaluation. The second part describes the basic idea of an alternative epistemological approach that focuses on improving the practice of argumentation by a representational tool called Logical Argument Mapping (LAM).
The curse of the Hegelian heritage: "Dialectic," "contradiction," and "dialectical logic" in Activity Theory

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2005) Hoffmann, Michael H. G.

Referring to the concept of "dialectic" has been a promising approach for Activity Theorists to explain development and learning both in societies and in individuals. "Contradictions," for example, are understood as the "driving force" of development. Often "dialectic" is supposed to work as the theory's most basic foundation. Open questions of this approach, however, are mostly answered simply by hinting at the authorities of Hegel and Marx. This paper's objective is to show that these "philosophical roots" of Activity Theory themselves need a critical, philosophical examination before they can be used as a theoretical basis.