11 - Argument Mapping
Arguments in real life are often quite messy, and a given discussion might involve multiple arguments, with participants leaping from one topic to the next without completing the first, explore a premise that leads to multiple conclusions, and generally conclude while leaving many threads hanging. As such, a diagram called an "argument map" can be employed as an agenda for conversation or an outline for presenting a written argument.
(EN: This section is highly illustrative, showing the way in which arguments can be listed and diagrammed, with various models connecting premises to conclusions. It seems straightforward enough that I'm skipping the elaboration.)
Some Niceties
The basic argument map tracks conclusions and premises in a structured manner, but are often oversimplified. As such the author presents some "niceties," which are tools, techniques, and methods to improve the quality of an argument map.
Use Complete Sentences as Premises and Conclusions
A single word or phrase may serve as shorthand, but when it is later revisited its meaning may be unclear.
Use Arrows to Indicate Logical Connections
A naked list of premises and conclusions leaves the reader to discover how they are connected, and assumes it will be self evident. The course of reasoning can be better illustrated using arrows that indicate the logical connections, such that a premise points to its conclusion, and a subordinate conclusion points to another that depends upon it.
Avoid including reasoning within a premise or conclusion. The whole point of using argument maps is to use arrows to explicitly indicate logical connections. So when you have an argument or an extended piece of reasoning, break it up and link the premises and conclusions with arrows. This ensures that logical connections are analyzed and understood.
Document Counterarguments and Objections
Failure to consider counterarguments and objections results in an argument that is valid but weak, myopic, and biased. An argument is strengthened by considering the opposite of each premise, and imagining counterpoints to the conclusion - and including them in the diagram helps to identify the strength of the argument and identify areas in which further exploration is necessary.
Distinguish between Co-Premises and Independent Premises
Co-premises are those that must be taken together to satisfy the condition of an argument, whereas an independent premise is not dependent of any other premise. In some instances, identifying sets of premises can clarify that there is more than one argument for a given conclusion.
Make Hidden Assumptions Fully Explicit if Possible
Certain assumptions are made in arguments because the author assumes his audience will agree with him. For example, a popular argument about homosexuality suggest it to be morally wrong because it is unnatural - which begs the question of what "unnatural" means (given that man exists in an environment of his own creation, is any behavior natural?) as well as the question of whether anything that is not natural is morally wrong (wearing clothing is unnatural, but not considered to be morally wrong).
Many people are sloppy or sneaky, in using premises for arguments that are based on assumptions that are not explicit, and suggesting that if you accept the premise you therefore agree with their assumption. Hence the importance to check the premises, to determine if they are indeed premises or require further evaluation.
A few guidelines that may help to simplify:
- Holding-hands: suggests that any term that appears in a premise, but not in the conclusion, must also appear in another premise
- Rabbit: any term that appears in the conclusion must also appear in at least one of the premises
These are not infallible or exhaustive - you may find a valid argument that does not follow the guidelines, or an invalid one that does - but they are highly useful in identifying obvious mistakes,
Displaying Objections to Reasoning
An argument map may identify an objection to the reasoning - specifically that indicates there is a lack of connectedness of a premise to a conclusion, that there are other premises to be considered, that the premises do not lead to the conclusion, etc. There is no standard notation for this practice as yet.