guest ::
| Home > Publications database > Some Benefits and Limitations of Modern Argument Map Representation |
| Home > Publications database > Some Benefits and Limitations of Modern Argument Map Representation |
| Journal Article | FZJ-2024-02497 |
2024
Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
Dordrecht [u.a.]
This record in other databases: 
Please use a persistent id in citations: doi:10.1007/s10503-023-09626-5 doi:10.34734/FZJ-2024-02497
Abstract: Argument maps represent some arguments more effectively than others. The goal of this article is to account for that variability, so that those who wish to use argument maps can do so with more foresight. I begin by identifying four properties of argument maps that make them useful tools for evaluating arguments. Then, I discuss four types of argument that are difficult to map well: reductio ad absurdum arguments, charges of equivocation, logical analogies, and mathematical arguments. The difficulties presented by these four types appear unrelated to one another, but I show that, in each case, the difficulty can be traced back to the use of metalinguistic reasoning. The need to represent a transition between object language and metalanguage can undermine one or more of the benefits that argument map representation would otherwise confer.
; 
; 
; Arts and Humanities Citation Index ; Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List ; Current Contents - Arts and Humanities ; Current Contents - Social and Behavioral Sciences ; DEAL Springer ; Essential Science Indicators ; IF < 5 ; JCR ; Nationallizenz
; SCOPUS ; Social Sciences Citation Index
|
The record appears in these collections: |
PDF