Argument Mapping

What?

Argument Mapping is the visual representation of the structure of an logical argument, where premises and conclusions are placed in boxes connected by arrows, such as in the following:

This was done using the bCisive argument mapping software, where the top level conclusion is called a 'Contention', and any arguments or premises supporting it are labelled 'Reasons'. Reasons can either be on their own or part of compound arguments consisting of various co-premises, as shown on the left. There are many different types of box you can have in an argument map, but in the version I use for Theory Mapping, it is kept as simple as possible to just the types of box shown above. In Theory Mapping, every Reason must be supported either by another Reason or by a 'Fact' which is empirical evidence agreed between the debate participants (rather than just what one person considers as 'evidence').

Although I came up with the idea for argument mapping myself a couple of years ago, it turns out to have quite a long history. This is not surprising given how useful it is as a tool to assist human reasoning. Indeed, what is more surprising is why it has not taken off earlier - perhaps because of the lack of software to facilitate it.

Interest in Argument Mapping is now growing rapidly as a way to augment human reasoning for business, personal, academic and educational use, with a number of software applications developed to facilitate its use e.g. bCisive, Rationale, Inspiration, Webspiration, aMap.

A number of websites have also been set up to facilitate debates using collaborative argument maps or text-based versions e.g. Debategraph, Cohere, Deliberatorium, Truthmapping.com, Argunet.

For more information about Argument Mapping, a good place to start is the Austhink website.

Theory Mapping applies the tool of Argument Mapping specifically for the generation, communication and selection of theories (for how this is done, see the other features of Theory Mapping, and the Process of Theory Mapping). This means that it can effectively complement the above online debate websites which are primarily debating about what 'ought' to be done, rather than what 'is'. Being clear about the current situation or best model to describe reality, is a necessary first step before one can make predictions about the future and identify and agree on what action to take.

Why?

Mapping a complex argument has the following potential benefits:

• Clarity of thought: mapping encourages us to express thoughts and their interrelationships much more precisely than we usually do, either when thinking alone or debating with others. By stating claims simply and unambiguously, and by having to draw lines of inference between such claims, we understand the precise nature of the argument much better.
• Uncovering hidden assumptions: having to use logically valid arguments requires that any implicit assumptions are made explicit. Furthermore, requiring that every premise be justified requires continually asking ‘Why is this true?’, leading to uncovering layers of arguments and assumptions that were lying beneath the surface of whatever argument you started with.
• Clear communication: once one is used to reading argument maps and the software is user friendly, they can arguably communicate complex arguments more effectively than prose. The hierarchical structure of argument maps allows the reader to see instantly the ‘gist’ of the argument at the top level of the map. The reader can then drill down the map to see as much detail as they want. Furthermore, all rhetoric and extraneous information is stripped away to only convey the essential logic of a case.
• Effective evaluation: it is easier to identify and comment on weak areas in an argument, whether in terms of the logical structure of the argument, or the justification of the premises. This can be done by inserting Objections into the map, such as the red Objection given in the example map above. Such Objections also need to be supported with reasons and evidence, and can be rebutted.
  

Furthermore, conducting a debate by drafting argument maps of the issues not only benefits from the above advantages over traditional means of debate (verbal, email or internet discussion forums), but also has the following benefit:

• Focus: digression both intentional and unintentional is prevented, since any point has to be addressed to a part of the argument (see the above argument map debating websites for more information about this).

It should be mentioned however, that these benefits are only 'potential'. Given that it is still a relatively new tool, there is currently a lack of empirical research into its effectiveness.
f