Mapping the Relations Between Arguments: Difference between revisions

From docs.reasonspace.com
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:


With this terminology under our belts we can look at and discuss more complex maps that show relations between arguments.
With this terminology under our belts we can look at and discuss more complex maps that show relations between arguments.





Revision as of 10:59, 9 August 2022

Our thinking isn’t usually made up of single, isolated arguments, but of complex sets of interrelated arguments. And argument mapping helps us to visualize and understand these relations. In this section we’ll consider how the argument we looked at earlier concerning Natalie might be related to other arguments. Before we do that, let’s review the simple map of that argument and get clear on how we are going to refer to each of its parts.

V0Map1.png



Each box contains a numbered proposition. We’ll refer to them as “Proposition 1,” “Proposition 2,” and “Proposition 3.” The green circle represents the act of inference, and we’ll refer to it as “Inference A.” We’ll use the phrase “Argument A” to refer to the whole argument, which includes the inference, along with its premises and the conclusion.

With this terminology under our belts we can look at and discuss more complex maps that show relations between arguments.





One way in which arguments can be related is by sharing the same conclusion. Here’s an example: