Michael Hoffmann
Professor
Member Of:
- School of Public Policy
- Digital Integrative Liberal Arts Center
Office Location: DM Smith G04
Related Links:
Email Address: michael.hoffmann@pubpolicy.gatech.edu
Overview
Dr. Michael Hoffmann is a Professor for Philosophy in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Tech. He is the Director of the Reflect! Lab, Co-Director of ETHICx, the Ethics, Technology, and Human Interaction Center, and he directs the VIP Digital Deliberation. He is doing research in three areas. In political philosophy, he focuses on the question of how democratic institutions should be designed that strengthen democracy. In AI ethics, he works on participatory design for human well-being. And across multiple disciplines he develops methods and collaborative software tools to support deliberation, argumentation, and consensus-building, as well as instruments to assess the skills and dispositions needed for these activities.
For publications to download see https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Hoffmann-5 and http://works.bepress.com/michael_hoffmann/.
Education:
- Dr. phil. habil., Philosophy, Technical University of Dresden, Germany, 2003
- PhD, Philosophy, Ludwig-Maximilians University
Awards and
Distinctions:
Distinctions:
- Gold Star Award in recognition of the highest level of accomplishment in research. Awarded 2011by Georgia Tech
Interests
Research Fields:
- Argumentation Theory
- Computer Supported Argument Visualization
- Digital Humanities
- Ethics and Philosophy of Science and Technology
- Wicked Problems
Issues:
- Inequality and Social Justice
- Communication
- Conflicts
- Cross-Cultural Understanding
- Digital and Mixed Media
- Digital Communication
- Digital Humanities
- Education
- Emerging Technologies - Innovation
- Framing
- Higher Education: Teaching and Learning
- Intercultural Issues
- Interdisciplinary Learning and Partnering
- Problem-Based Learning
- Technology
- Wicked Problems
Courses
- LCC-6748: Social Justice & Design
- PHIL-2010: Intro Philosophy
- PHIL-2025: Philosophical Analysis
- PHIL-2698: Research Assistantship
- PHIL-3050: Political Philosophy
- PHIL-3127: Sci, Tech & Human Values
- PHIL-6000: Responsible Conduct-Res
- PST-1101: Philosophical Analysis
- PST-2020: Philosophical Analysis
- PST-3109: Ethics&Tech Profession
- PUBP-6001: Intro to Public Policy
- PUBP-6010: Ethic,Epistem&Public Pol
- PUBP-6748: Social Justice & Design
Publications
Recent Publications
Journal Articles
- Reflective Consensus Building on the Nation’s Largest Confederate Memorial. A Case Study
In: Social Science Quarterly v.102 [Peer Reviewed]
Date: April 2021
- Reflective Consensus Building on Wicked Problems with the Reflect! Platform
In: Science and Engineering Ethics v.26 [Peer Reviewed]
Date: April 2020
- Consensus building and its epistemic conditions
In: Topoi [Peer Reviewed]
Date: April 2019
- “... and therefore in a Remote Sense Abduction Rests upon Diagrammatic Reasoning”
In: EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
Date: September 2018
- Transcendental arguments in scientific reasoning
In: Erkenntnis [Peer Reviewed]
Date: June 2018
All Publications
Books
- Activity and sign: Grounding mathematics education
Date: December 2005
The advancement of a scientific discipline depends not only on the "big heroes" of a discipline, but also on a community's ability to reflect on what has been done in the past and what should be done in the future. This volume combines perspectives on both. It celebrates the merits of Michael Otte as one of the most important founding fathers of mathematics education by bringing together all the new and fascinating perspectives, created through his career as a bridge builder in the field of interdisciplinary research and cooperation. The perspectives elaborated here are for the greatest part motivated by the impressing variety of Otte's thoughts; however, the idea is not to look back, but to find out where the research agenda might lead us in the future. This volume provides new sources of knowledge based on Michael Otte's fundamental insight that understanding the problems of mathematics education-how to teach, how to learn, how to communicate, how to do, and how to represent mathematics-depends on means, mainly philosophical and semiotic, that have to be created first of all, and to be reflected from the perspectives of a multitude of diverse disciplines. © 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. All rights reserved. - Activity and Sign - Grounding Mathematics Education
Date: 2005
- Erkenntnisentwicklung. Ein semiotisch-pragmatischer Ansatz (Knowledge Development. A Semiotic and Pragmatic Approach)
Date: 2005
- Mathematik verstehen – Semiotische Perspektiven
Date: 2003
- Die Entstehung von Ordnung. Zur Bestimmung von Sein, Erkennen und Handeln in der späteren Philosophie Platons
Date: 1996
Journal Articles
- Reflective Consensus Building on the Nation’s Largest Confederate Memorial. A Case Study
In: Social Science Quarterly v.102 [Peer Reviewed]
Date: April 2021
- Reflective Consensus Building on Wicked Problems with the Reflect! Platform
In: Science and Engineering Ethics v.26 [Peer Reviewed]
Date: April 2020
- Consensus building and its epistemic conditions
In: Topoi [Peer Reviewed]
Date: April 2019
- “... and therefore in a Remote Sense Abduction Rests upon Diagrammatic Reasoning”
In: EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
Date: September 2018
- Transcendental arguments in scientific reasoning
In: Erkenntnis [Peer Reviewed]
Date: June 2018
- Stimulating reflection and self-correcting reasoning through argument mapping: Three approaches
In: Topoi [Peer Reviewed]
Date: March 2018
- The elusive notion of “argument quality”
In: Argumentation [Peer Reviewed]
Date: November 2017
- Reflective Argumentation: A Cognitive Function of Arguing
In: Argumentation [Peer Reviewed]
Date: 2016
- Facilitating problem-based learning by means of collaborative argument visualization software
In: Teaching Philosophy [Peer Reviewed]
Date: December 2015
© 2015 Teaching Philosophy. All rights reserved.There is evidence that problem-based learning (PBL) is an effective approach to teach team and problem-solving skills, but also to acquire content knowledge. However, there is hardly any literature about using PBL in philosophy classes. One problem is that PBL is resource intensive because a facilitator is needed for each group of students to support learning efforts and monitor group dynamics. In order to establish more PBL classes, the question is whether PBL can be provided without the need for facilitators. We present a combination of five strategies-among them the collaborative argument visualization software AGORA-net-to replace facilitators. Additionally, we present evidence that these strategies are sufficient to provide a PBL experience that achieves intended learning goals in an ethics class and is satisfying for students without facilitators. - Reflective Argumentation: A Cognitive Function of Arguing
In: Argumentation [Peer Reviewed]
Date: November 2015
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media DordrechtWhy do we formulate arguments? Usually, things such as persuading opponents, finding consensus, and justifying knowledge are listed as functions of arguments. But arguments can also be used to stimulate reflection on one’s own reasoning. Since this cognitive function of arguments should be important to improve the quality of people’s arguments and reasoning, for learning processes, for coping with “wicked problems,” and for the resolution of conflicts, it deserves to be studied in its own right. This contribution develops first steps towards a theory of reflective argumentation. It provides a definition of reflective argumentation, justifies its importance, delineates it from other cognitive functions of argumentation in a new classification of argument functions, and it discusses how reflection on one’s own reasoning can be stimulated by arguments. - Changing Philosophy Through Technology: Complexity and Computer-Supported Collaborative Argument Mapping
In: Philosophy and Technology [Peer Reviewed]
Date: June 2015
© 2013, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.Technology is not only an object of philosophical reflection but also something that can change this reflection. This paper discusses the potential of computer-supported argument visualization tools for coping with the complexity of philosophical arguments. I will show, in particular, how the interactive and web-based argument mapping software “AGORA-net” can change the practice of philosophical reflection, communication, and collaboration. AGORA-net allows the graphical representation of complex argumentations in logical form and the synchronous and asynchronous collaboration on those “argument maps” on the internet. Web-based argument mapping can overcome limits of space, time, and access, and it can empower users from all over the world to clarify their reasoning and to participate in deliberation and debate. Collaborative and web-based argument mapping tools such as AGORA-net can change the practice of arguing in two dimensions. First, arguing on web-based argument maps in both collaborative and adversarial form can lead to a fundamental shift in the way arguments are produced and debated. It can provide an alternative to the traditional four-step process of writing, publishing, debating, and responding in new writing with its clear distinction between individual and social activities by a process in which these four steps happen virtually simultaneously, and individual and social activities become more closely intertwined. Second, by replacing the linear form of arguments through graphical representations of networks of inferential relations which can grow over time in an infinite space, these tools do not only allow a clear visualization of structures and relations, but also forms of collaboration in which, for example, participants work on different “construction zones” of larger argument maps, or debates are performed at specific points of disagreement on those maps. I introduce the term synergetic logosymphysis (defined as a process in which an argumentative structure grows in a collaborative effort) to describe a practice that combines these two dimensions of collaborative- and web-based argument mapping. - Understanding Ill-Structured Engineering Ethics Problems Through a Collaborative Learning and Argument Visualization Approach
In: Science and Engineering Ethics [Peer Reviewed]
Date: March 2014
As a committee of the National Academy of Engineering recognized, ethics education should foster the ability of students to analyze complex decision situations and ill-structured problems. Building on the NAE’s insights, we report about an innovative teaching approach that has two main features: first, it places the emphasis on deliberation and on self-directed, problem-based learning in small groups of students; and second, it focuses on understanding ill-structured problems. The first innovation is motivated by an abundance of scholarly research that supports the value of deliberative learning practices. The second results from a critique of the traditional case-study approach in engineering ethics. A key problem with standard cases is that they are usually described in such a fashion that renders the ethical problem as being too obvious and simplistic. The practitioner, by contrast, may face problems that are ill-structured. In the collaborative learning environment described here, groups of students use interactive and web-based argument visualization software called “AGORA-net: Participate – Deliberate!”. The function of the software is to structure communication and problem solving in small groups. Students are confronted with the task of identifying possible stakeholder positions and reconstructing their legitimacy by constructing justifications for these positions in the form of graphically represented argument maps. The argument maps are then presented in class so that these stakeholder positions and their respective justifications become visible and can be brought into a reasoned dialogue. Argument mapping provides an opportunity for students to collaborate in teams and to develop critical thinking and argumentation skills.
- What is "Science"? For what do we need a "Polyocular Framework"?
In: Constructivist Foundations
Date: 2014
- Erratum to Philosophy of and as interdisciplinarity (Synthese, 10.1007/s11229-012-0214-8)
In: Synthese
Date: July 2013
- Philosophy of and as interdisciplinarity
In: Synthese
Date: July 2013
- Climate ethics: Structuring deliberation by means of logical argument mapping
In: Journal of Speculative Philosophy
Date: June 2011
One of the first things President Obama did after coming to office was the establishment of the Office of Public Engagement. As described on its Web site, this office "is the embodiment of the President's goal of making government inclusive, transparent, accountable and responsible." The Office of Public Engagement is supposed to "create and coordinate opportunities for direct dialogue between the Obama Administration and the American public, while bringing new voices to the table and ensuring that everyone can participate and inform the work of the President." 1 As the president explained in his memorandum on transparency and open government, "Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge." 2 Indeed, knowledge is widely dispersed in modern societies. We find it not only in a growing number of scientific disciplines but also outside of academia in highly educated and skilled individuals and in local communities that know how policy decisions materialize "on the ground." For the scientific debate on "deliberative" or "participatory democracy," President Obama's initiatives are exciting news. Finally, so it seems, after Jürgen Habermas (1989) complained nearly fifty years ago that in capitalist societies the critical discourse of the public as the foundation of democratic decision making tends to be marginalized by the politicking of lobbies, private interests, and administrations, we see an attempt to "establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration," as the president writes. 3 From a theoretical point of view, the central idea of "deliberative democracy" can be summarized by a definition formulated by Andrew Smith: Theories of © 2010 Project MUSE®. - Philosophy of (and as) Interdisciplinarity. Workshop Report (Atlanta, September 28-29, 2009)
In: Journal for General Philosophy of Science
Date: May 2011
- Cognitive conditions of diagrammatic reasoning
In: Semiotica
Date: 2011
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. - "Theoric transformations" and a new classification of abductive inferences
In: Transactions of the Charles S Peirce Society [Peer Reviewed]
Date: December 2010
Based on a definition of "abductive insight" and a critical discussion of G. Schurz's (2008) distinction of eleven "patterns of abduction" that he organizes in four groups, I suggest an even more comprehensive classification that distinguishes 15 forms in an alternative structure. These forms are organized, on the one hand, with regard to what is abductively inferred-singular facts, types, laws, theoretical models, or representation systems- and, on the other, with regard to the question whether the abductive procedure is selective or creative (including a distinction between "psychologically creative," as in school learning, or "historically creative"). Moreover, I argue that theoretical-model abduction-which seems to be the most important form of abduction-depends on two preconditions: first on the availability of an adequate system of representation, and second on finding a new "perspective" on a given problem, as Peirce described it with the notion of a "theoric transformation." To understand the significance of theoric transformations- especially in mathematics-it is necessary to analyze in some detail Peirce's main example for a theoric transformation: the proof of Desargues's theorem. © 2011. - Something to learn about on the conditions of the possibility of diagrammatical reasoning: Diagram use in logic and arithmetic
In: Zeitschrift fur Semiotik
Date: December 2009
This paper analyzes Frederik Stjernfelt's recently published Diagrammatology in order to clarify the role of diagrammatical reasoning within an epistemology that focuses on the problem of learning and the growth of knowledge. To achieve this goal, precise definitions of Peirce's concepts of "diagram" and "diagrammatical reasoning" are provided which emphasize in particular the necessity of consistent systems of representation as a precondition for both. The paper starts with a critique of two claims for which Stjernfelt argues: first, that it is possible to learn by observing icons and, second, that icons can be defined by similarity. - The complementarity of a representational and an epistemological function of signs in scientific activity
In: Semiotica [Peer Reviewed]
Date: December 2007
Signs do not only 'represent' something for somebody, as Peirce's definition goes, but also 'mediate' relations between us and our world, including ourselves, as has been elaborated by Vygotsky. We call the first the representational function of a sign and the second the epistemological function since in using signs we make distinctions, specify objects and relations, structure our observations, and organize societal and cognitive activity. The goal of this paper is, on the one hand, to develop a model in which both these functions appear as complementary and, on the other, to show that this complementarity is essential for the dynamics of scientific activity, causing a dialectical process of generating new epistemological and representational means. This will be demonstrated with an example of how two scientists with different background knowledge analyze educational data collaboratively. © Walter de Gruyter. - Learning from people, things, and signs
In: Studies in Philosophy and Education
Date: May 2007
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. © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007. - Learning without belief-change?
In: Cultural Studies of Science Education
Date: 2007
Commentary paper on Charbel Nin˜o El-Hani and Eduardo Fleury Mortimer’s article ‘‘Multicultural education, pragmatism, and the goals of science teaching,’’ in the same issue - What is a "semiotic perspective", and what could it be? Some comments on the contributions to this special issue
In: Educational Studies in Mathematics
Date: February 2006
This comment attempts to identify different "semiotic perspectives" proposed by the authors of this special issue according to the problems they discuss. These problems can be distinguished as problems concerning the representation of mathematical knowledge, the definition and objectivity of meaning, epistemological questions of learning and activity in mathematics, and the social dimension of sign processes. The contributions are discussed so as to make visible further research perspectives with regard to "semiotics in mathematics education". © Springer 2006. - Einleitung: Semiotik in der Mathematikdidaktik. Lernen anhand von Zeichen und Repräsentationen
In: Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik
Date: 2006
- How to change your mind—even if you do not plan to do it
In: Newsletter of the International Association for Conflict Management
Date: 2006
- Logical argument mapping: A method for overcoming cognitive problems of conflict management
In: International Journal of Conflict Management [Peer Reviewed]
Date: December 2005
A crucial problem of conflict management is that whatever happens in negotiations will be interpreted and framed by stakeholders based on their different belief-value systems and world views. This problem will be discussed in the first part of this article as the main cognitive problem of conflict management. The second part develops a general semiotic solution of this problem, based on Charles Peirce's concept of "diagrammatic reasoning." The basic idea is that by representing one's thought in diagrams, the conditions that determine interpretations can become visible, we can "experiment" with them, and we can change them eventually. The third part, finally, focuses on a concrete tool, called Logical Argument Mapping (LAM), that can be used in conflict management to perform such diagrammatic reasoning and to cope with the cognitive problems discussed in the first part. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the sovereignty over Jerusalem will be used as an example to show how LAM could work in practice. - What you should know to survive in knowledge societies: On a semiotic understanding of 'knowledge'
In: Semiotica
Date: December 2005
Different situations - like school and workplace - demand different forms of knowledge. Even more important, in particular for lifelong learning, are forms of knowledge we need for managing movements between those situations. To develop a better understanding of how to 'navigate' knowledge boundaries, this paper analyzes, firstly, interviews with scientists interpreting familiar and unfamiliar graphs. Our goal is to identify those forms of knowledge that should receive special attention in education. Secondly, the article elaborates - based on Peirce's semiotics - an epistemologically reflected semiotic model to describe the role and conditions of knowledge necessary for crossing knowledge boundaries. © Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG 2005. - Diagrammatic reasoning as the basis for developing concepts: A semiotic analysis of students' learning about statistical distribution
In: Educational Studies in Mathematics [Peer Reviewed]
Date: November 2005
In recent years, semiotics has become an innovative theoretical framework in mathematics education. The purpose of this article is to show that semiotics can be used to explain learning as a process of experimenting with and communicating about one's own representations (in particular 'diagrams') of mathematical problems. As a paradigmatic example, we apply a Peircean semiotic framework to answer the question of how students develop a notion of 'distribution' in a statistics course by 'diagrammatic reasoning' and by forming 'hypostatic abstractions', that is by forming new mathematical objects which can be used as means for communication and further reasoning. Peirce's semiotic terminology is used as an alternative to concepts such as modeling, symbolizing, and reification. We will show that it is a precise instrument of analysis with regard to the complexity of learning and communicating in mathematics classrooms. © Springer 2005. - Limits of truth: Exploring epistemological approaches to argumentation
In: Informal Logic [Peer Reviewed]
Date: 2005
Some proponents of epistemological approaches to argumentation (Biro, Siegel, Lumer, Goldman) assume that it should be possible to develop non-relative criteria of argument evaluation. By contrast, this paper argues that any evaluation of an argument depends (a) on the cognitive situation of the evaluator, (b) on background knowledge that is available for this evaluator in a certain situation, and (c)—in some cases—on the belief-value-system this person shares. - Learning by developing knowledge networks: A semiotic approach within a dialectical framework
In: ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education
Date: December 2004
A central challenge for research on how we should prepare students to manage crossing boundaries between different knowledge settings in life long learning processes is to identify those forms of knowledge that are particularly relevant here. In this paper, we develop by philosophical means the concept of a dialectical system as a general framework to describe the development of knowledge networks that mark the starting point for learning processes, and we use semiotics to discuss (a) the epistemological thesis that any cognitive access to our world of objects is mediated by signs and (b) diagrammatic reasoning and abduction as those forms of practical knowledge that are crucial for the development of knowledge networks. The richness of this theoretical approach becomes evident by applying it to an example of learning in a biological research context. At the same time, we take a new look at the role of mathematical knowledge in this process. - Axiomatisierung zwischen Platon und Aristoteles
In: Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung [Peer Reviewed]
Date: 2004
During history of philosophy, it was a shared opinion that Aristotle was the first who formulated a clear idea of axiomatization of scientific knowledge. While this view has been criticized in recent years, the articleﾒs major goal is to rehabilitate it partly, but from a new point of view. Starting point is a distinction between two quite different interpretations about what ﾓaxiomatizationﾔ really is which has become important since Hilbertﾒs axiomatization of geometry: a ﾓlogical-analyticalﾔ interpretation, and a ﾓmodel-theoreticalﾔ one. Based on this distinction, the paper shows firstly that Aristotle can be seen as the founding father of the ﾓlogical-analyticalﾔ interpretation. Secondly, it is argued that we can find in the pseudo-platonic Epinomis some hints at a model-theoretic interpretation of axiomatics which opens up a new glance at Platoﾒs most famous concept: the ﾓidea of the good.ﾔ - How to Get It. Diagrammatic Reasoning as a Tool of Knowledge Development and its Pragmatic Dimension
In: Foundations of Science [Peer Reviewed]
Date: 2004
enlarged for homepage Atlanta: Discussions concerning belief revision, theory development, and "creativity" in philosophy and AI, reveal a growing interest in Peirce's concept of abduction. Peirce introduced abduction in an attempt to provide theoretical dignity and clarification to the difficult problem of knowledge generation. He wrote that "An Abduction is Originary in respect to being the only kind of argument which starts a new idea." These discussions, however, have led to considerable debates about the precise way in which Peirce's abduction can be used to explain knowledge generation. The crucial question is that of understanding how we can get the new elements capable of enlarging our theories. Under these circumstances, the paper steps out of the entanglement and reconsider the basis of the problem that originally triggered Peirce's interest in abduction. This leads to another Peircean concept, that of "diagrammatic reasoning," which has to be interpreted in the context of his "pragmatism." The project elaborates, in particular, some arguments for the specific kind of realism Peirce has to presuppose in order to explain the possibility of knowledge development by diagrammatic reasoning. abstract in Foundations of Scinece Discussions concerning belief revision, theory development, and "creativity'' in philosophy and AI, reveal a growing interest in Peirce's concept of abduction. Peirce introduced abduction in an attempt to provide theoretical dignity and clarification to the difficult problem of knowledge generation. He wrote that ``An Abduction is Originary in respect to being the only kind of argument which starts a new idea'' (Peirce, CP 2.26). These discussions, however, led to considerable debates about the precise way in which Peirce's abduction can be used to explain knowledge generation (cf. Magnani, 1999; Hoffmann, 1999). The crucial question is that of understanding how we can get the new elements capable of enlarging our theories. Under these circumstances, it might be helpful to step out of the entanglement and reconsider the basis of the problem that originally triggered Peirce's interest in abduction. This will lead us to another Peircean concept, that of "diagrammatic reasoning,'' which I discuss here in the context of his "pragmatism.'' In this way, I hope to reach a better understanding of the contribution of "abduction'' to the knowledge generation process. - Learning by Developing Knowledge Networks. A semiotic approach within a dialectical framework
In: ZDM. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik
Date: 2004
A central challenge for research on how we should prepare students to manage crossing boundaries between different knowledge settings in life long learning processes is to identify those forms of knowledge that are particularly relevant here. In this paper, we develop by philosophical means the concept of a dialectical system as a general framework to describe the de-velopment of knowledge networks that mark the starting point for learning processes, and we use semiotics to discuss (a) the epistemological thesis that any cognitive access to our world of objects is mediated by signs and (b) diagrammatic reasoning and abduction as those forms of practical knowledge that are crucial for the development of knowledge networks. The rich-ness of this theoretical approach becomes evident by applying it to an example of learning in a biological research context. At the same time, we take a new look at the role of mathematical knowledge in this process. - Peirces Philosophie der Wissenschaft, Logik und Erkenntnistheorie. Neuere Publikationen und Editionen. 1. Teil
In: Philosophische Rundschau
Date: 2004
- Peirces Philosophie der Wissenschaft, Logik und Erkenntnistheorie. Neuere Publikationen und Editionen. 2. Teil
In: Philosophische Rundschau
Date: 2004
- Das Problem der Erkenntnisentwicklung und Peirces semiotisch-pragmatischer Lösungsansatz
In: Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie [Peer Reviewed]
Date: 2002
homepage Atlanta: Recent debates about “foundationalism” and “coherentism” as two approaches to justify knowledge have shown that their respective difficulties could be overcome by focussing on the development of knowledge. However, changing the point of view in this way leads at once to a problem which is well-known as the “paradox of learning” since Plato’s Meno. This paradox is “that if one tries to account for learning by means of mental actions carried out by the learner, then it is necessary to attribute to the learner a prior cognitive structure that is as advanced or complex as the one to be acquired” (Bereiter). The article shows that the two traditional solutions of this paradox – apriorism and inductivism – are the two horns of a dilemma. The thesis is that we can cope with this dilemma by means of Peirce’s concept of “diagrammatic reasoning” as developed within his semiotics. From a pragmatic point of view, emphasis is laid on the consistency of representational systems so that development of knowledge can either be explained by finding new representations within a given representational system, or by developing this system itself. - Geist und Welt - durch die Symbolisierungen der Kunst betrachtet. Rezension von: Rolf Lachmann, Susanne K. Langer. Die lebendige Form menschlichen Fühlens und Verstehens. München 2000: Fink
In: IASL online
Date: 2001
- Skizze einer semiotischen Theorie des Lernens
In: Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik [Peer Reviewed]
Date: 2001
- Was taugt Abduktion zur Lösung des Korrelationsproblems der Religionspädagogik?
In: Beitrag auf Einladung der DFG und der Katholisch-Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Würzburg (Prof. Dr. H.-G. Ziebertz) zu e
Date: 2001
- Die Paradoxie des Lernens und ein semiotischer Ansatz zu ihrer Auflösung
In: Zeitschrift für Semiotik
Date: 2000
- Einleitung. Lernen als Zeichenprozess -Themenheft
In: Zeitschrift für Semiotik
Date: 2000
- Lernen als Zeichenprozess
In: Zeitschrift für Semiotik
Date: 2000
- Mathematik als Prozess der Verallgemeinerung von Zeichen: Eine exemplarische Unterrichtseinheit zur Entdeckung der Inkommensurabilität
In: Zeitschrift für Semiotik
Date: 2000
- Problems with Peirce's Concept of Abduction
In: Foundations of Science [Peer Reviewed]
Date: 1999
Abductive reasoning takes place in forming "hypotheses" in order to explain "facts." Thus, the concept of abduction promises an understanding of creativity in science and learning. It raises, however, also a lot of problems. Some of them will be discussed in this paper: After analyzing the difference between induction and abduction (1), I shall discuss Peirce's claim that there is a "logic" of abduction (2). The thesis is that this claim can be understood, if we make a clear distinction between inferential elements and perceptive elements of abductive reasoning. For Peirce, the creative act of forming explanatory hypotheses and the emergence of "new ideas" belongs exclusively to the perceptive side of abduction. Thus, it is necessary to study the role of perception in abductive reasoning (3). A further problem is the question whether there is a relationship between abduction and Peirce's concept of "theorematic reasoning" in mathematics (4). Both forms of reasoning could be connected, because both are based on perception. The last problem concerns the role of instincts in explaining the success of abductive reasoning in science, and the question whether the concept of instinct might be replaced by methods of inquiry (5). - Verzicht auf Wahrheit, Existenz von Tatsachen und die Frage nach der "Radikalität" der "Radikal-Konstruktivistischen Wissenstheorie"
In: Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften
Date: 1998
- ¿Hay una Lógica de la Abductión?
In: Analogía Filosófica (Mexico)
Date: 1998
- Ideen, Wissen und Wahrheit nach Platon. Neuere Monographien
In: Philosophische Rundschau
Date: 1997
- Neues zu Platons „ungeschriebenen Lehren"
In: Philosophische Rundschau
Date: 1996
- Warum ist Mathematik allgemeinbildend?
In: Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Mathematik
Date: 1996
- Die Philosophie der Mathematik bei Charles S. Peirce im Kontext seines "evolutionären Realismus". Eine Untersuchung zum Peirceschen Kontinuitätsprinzip.
In: DIALEKTIK. Enzyklopädische Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Wissenschaften
Date: 1994
- Jona oder die Kunst, unrecht haben zu können. Überlegungen zur hermeneutischen Praxis
In: LESARTEN. Zeitschrift für Interpretation
Date: 1994
- LESARTEN
In: Zeitschrift für Interpretation
Date: 1994
- The Realization of the Due-Measure as Structural Principle in Plato's Statesman
In: POLIS. Newsletter of the Society for the Study of Greek Political Thought
Date: 1993
- Rezension zu: Hans Jonas, Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation, Frankfurt a.M. 1984
In: Zeitschrift für Politik
Date: 1988
Chapters
- Commentary on Leite, Martins and Eğilmez’s Towards an Online Social Debating System
Date: 2016
- Argument Mapping Software: Semiotic Foundations
Date: 2015
- Chapter 13
In: 5 Questions
Date: 2014
- Cogniçâ e Pensamento Diagramático
Date: 2013
- Analyzing Framing Processes in Conflicts and Communication By Means Of Logical Argument Mapping.
Date: 2011
- Four Functions of Signs in Learning and Interdisciplinary Collaboration
Date: 2010
For SAAP: Developing a theory of signs was Peirce’s goal for about fifty years of his life. There are some indications that he himself perceived his efforts at the end as a failure. This paper argues that a fundamental problem of Peirce’s approach to semiotics is that he did not realize that signs can fulfill a set of very different functions. Depending on these functions, our understanding of what signs are will vary. I will show that there are at least four basic sign functions which I call the “representational,” the “epistemic,” the “volitional,” and the “formal” function. A main point of my argument is that only the epistemic and the formal sign function can be modeled as triadic relations, while-in contrast to Peirce’s most fundamental assumption-the representational and the volitional function can only be fulfilled if four irreducible elements are present simultaneously.
- Signs in/of Communication
Date: 2010
- Seeing Problems, Seeing Solutions. Abduction and Diagrammatic Reasoning in a Theory of Scientific Discovery
Date: 2007
For Philosopher's Index: This paper sketches a theory of scientific discovery that is based on two concepts developed by Charles Peirce: abduction and diagrammatic reasoning. Both are problematic. While “abduction” describes the process of creating a new idea, it does neither explain how this process is possible, nor is it precisely enough defined to distinguish different forms of creating new ideas. “Diagrammatic reasoning,” by contrast, is limited to mathematics. The theory sketched here develops an extended version of diagrammatic reasoning as a general theory of scientific discovery in which eight different forms of abduction play a central role. 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. - Axiomatisierung zwischen Platon und Aristoteles
Date: 2006
During history of philosophy, it was a shared opinion that Aristotle was the first who formulated a clear idea of axiomatization of scientific knowledge. While this view has been criticized in recent years, the articleﾒs major goal is to rehabilitate it partly, but from a new point of view. Starting point is a distinction between two quite different interpretations about what ﾓaxiomatizationﾔ really is which has become important since Hilbertﾒs axiomatization of geometry: a ﾓlogical-analyticalﾔ interpretation, and a ﾓmodel-theoreticalﾔ one. Based on this distinction, the paper shows firstly that Aristotle can be seen as the founding father of the ﾓlogical-analyticalﾔ interpretation. Secondly, it is argued that we can find in the pseudo-platonic Epinomis some hints at a model-theoretic interpretation of axiomatics which opens up a new glance at Platoﾒs most famous concept: the ﾓidea of the good.ﾔ - Seeing problems, seeing solutions. Abduction and diagrammatic reasoning in a semiotic theory of learning and scientific discovery
Date: 2006
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. - Grounding mathematics education. Michael Otte's contribution
Date: 2005
- Signs as Means for Discoveries. Peirce and His Concepts of 'Diagrammatic Reasoning,' 'Theorematic Deduction,' 'Hypostatic Abstraction,' and 'Theoric Transformation'
Date: 2005
- Zur Einheit mathematischen Wissens. Von Platon zu Gödel
Date: 2004
- Einleitung: Warum Semiotik?
Date: 2003
- Lernende lernen abduktiv: eine Methodologie kreativen Denkens
Date: 2003
- Peirce's Diagrammatic Reasoning as a Solution of the Learning Paradox
Date: 2003
Enlarged for homepage Atlanta: How can we reach “new” levels of knowledge if “new” means that there is something “evolved” that cannot be generated simply by deduction or by induction from what has been given before. The paper’s first goal is to show that two paradigmatic attempts at solving this so-called “learning paradox,” Plato’s apriorism and Aristotle’s inductivism, form two horns of a dilemma: While the inductivist cannot justify any representation of data without assuming a priori given hypotheses, the apriorist cannot justify why a certain application of given ideas is correct without being caught in an infinite regress. The second goal is to explore how Peirce’s concept of diagrammatic reasoning can avoid this dilemma, and thus makes it possible to explain knowledge development. This is achieved by relating Peirce’s idea of “diagrammatic reasoning” to Kant’s “schemata” (a), by highlighting as three essential functions of “diagrammatization” to fix vague thinking in order to gain self-control of thought (b), to reduce complexity (c), and to disarm the “internal-external dichotomy” behind the apriorism-inductivism distinction (d), by showing that the possibility of diagrammatic reasoning depends on a certain form of realism (e), and by explaining the genuine creativity enabled by diagrammatic reasoning through the role of experimenting with diagrams (f), of creating new elements for diagrams (g), and of using different representational systems for diagrammatization (h). - Semiotik als Analyse-Instrument
Date: 2003
- Die synthetisch-pragmatische Mathematikauffassung im Gegensatz zur analytischen – ein Blick auf die Geschichte der Philosophie der Mathematik
Date: 2001
- Was sind Symbole, und wie läßt sich ihre Bedeutung erfassen?
Date: 2001
- Das Problem der Zukunft im Rahmen holistischer Ethiken. Im Ausgang von Platon und Peirce
Date: 1996
Conferences
- Navicons for collaboration - Navigating and augmenting discussions through visual annotations
Date: September 2015
© 2015 IEEE.As discussions move online, we need means that compensate for what we take for granted in face-to-face meetings: voice modulation, mimics, or gestures. There are three functions of these 'metadiscoursive' expressions: 1) to navigate conversations and to direct the attention of our interlocutors, deciding what to discuss, reviewing what has been said, or how things are framed 2) to signal attitudes such as agreement or disagreement, or the level of certainty or commitment and 3) to annotate (visual) content with comments. These functions are crucial for the quality of discussions and can benefit from information visualization. To do this, we propose a classification of navigational moves and attitudes and their visual representation in form of 'Navicons' and 'Atticons'. These icons help to improve the quality of online or face to face discussions, to plan conversations in advance, or to analyze past discussions. An example and outlook conclude the paper. - Changing the Practice of Knowledge Creation through Collaborative Argument Mapping on the Internet
Date: 2015
- Collaborative and adversarial reframing: How to use argument mapping to cope with “wicked problems” and intractable conflicts
Date: 2015
- Collaborative, problem-based learning with the argument-visualization
software AGORA-net
Date: 2013
- Collaborative, problem-based learning with the argument-visualization software “AGORA-net”
Date: 2013
- Changing engineering ethics education: Understanding ill-structured problems through argument visualization in collaborative learning
Date: August 2012
As a committee organized in 2009 by the National Academy of Engineering recognized, ethics education should foster the ability to analyze complex decision situations and illstructured problems. This presentation aims to build on the NAE's insights and reports about an innovative teaching approach that has two main features: first, it places the emphasis on deliberation and on self-directed, problem-based learning in small groups of students; and second, it focuses on understanding ill-structured problems. The first innovation is motivated by an abundance of scholarly research that supports the value of deliberative learning practices. The second results from a critique of the traditional case-study approach in engineering ethics. A key problem with standard cases is that they are usually described in such a fashion that renders the ethical problem as being too obvious and simplistic. Any description that already ?frames" a case in this kind of way tends to trivialize the ethical challenge. The practitioner, by contrast, will mostly face problems that are ill-structured and for which it is not even clear if they include a real ethical challenge. In the collaborative learning environment described here, groups of students use interactive and web-based argument visualization software called ?AGORA- net: Participate - Deliberate!". The function of the software is to structure communication and problem solving in small groups. The software guides students step by step through a process of argument mapping. Students are confronted with the task of identifying possible stakeholder positions and reconstructing their legitimacy by constructing justifications for these positions in the form of graphically represented logical argument maps. The argument maps are then presented in class so that these stakeholder positions and their respective justifications become visible and can be brought into a reasoned dialogue and deliberative process. Argument mapping in engineering ethics courses provides an exciting opportunity for students to collaborate in teams and to develop critical thinking and argumentation skills. © 2012 American Society for Engineering Education. - Changing Engineering Ethics Education: Understanding ill-structured problems through argument visualization in collaborative learning
Date: 2012
- Cognitive Effects of Argument Visualization Tools
Date: 2011
External representations play a crucial role in learning. At the same time, cognitive load theory suggests that the possibility of learning depends on limited resources of the working memory and on cognitive load imposed by instructional design and representation tools. Both these observations motivate a critical look at Computer-Supported Argument Visualization (CSAV) tools that are supposed to facilitate learning. This paper uses cognitive load theory to compare the cognitive efficacy of Rationale 2 and AGORA. - Powerful Arguments: Logical Argument Mapping
Date: 2011
This paper argues that deductive arguments are "powerful" when the goal is to stimulate reflection on one's own reasoning. Powerful arguments are defined as arguments that leave only one choice for a potential opponent: either to accept the conclusion or to defeat one of its premises. In the first part, the paper presents an argument for the thesis that so defined powerful arguments are possible when we do not only provide reasons as premises of an argument, but also what is called an "enabler." An "enabler" is that premise in an argument that guarantees that the reason provided in this argument is sufficient to justify the claim or conclusion. In the second part an argument is provided for the theses that powerful arguments promote mutual understanding and self-reflexivity. The paper introduces Logical Argument Mapping (LAM) as a way to present powerful arguments and it describes the LAM approach by means of a reconstruction of Thomas Nagel's core argument in "The Problem of Global Justice." - Diagrams as scaffolds for abductive insights
Date: December 2010
Based on a typology of five basic forms of abduction, I propose a new definition of abductive insight that emphasizes in particular the inferential structure of a belief system that is able to explain a phenomenon after a new, abductively created component has been added to this system or the entire system has been abductively restructured. My thesis is, first, that the argumentative structure of the pursued problem solution guides abductive creativity and, second, that diagrammatic reasoning - if conceptualized according to the requirements defined by Charles Peirce - can support this guidance. This support is mainly possible based on the normative power of the system of representation that has to be used to construct diagrams and to perform experiments with them. Copyright © 2010, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. All rights reserved. - Powerful Arguments: Logical Argument Mapping
Date: 2010
- Analyzing Framing Processes by Means of Logical Argument Mapping
Date: 2008
- Analyzing Framing Processes By Means Of Logical Argument Mapping
Date: 2008
- Requirements for reflective argument visualization tools: A case for using validity as a normative standard
Date: 2008
This paper formulates in the first part some requirements for a certain sort of computational argumentation systems, namely those which are designed for a very specific purpose: to motivate reflection on one's own thinking, and to induce cognitive change. This function of argumentation systems is important for argument-based conflict negotiations, deliberation processes, intercultural communication, text analysis, and learning through argument visualization. In all these situations success is only possible when people are able to change their mind, learn something, or start to reframe well-established ways of perceiving and interpreting things. Based on these requirements, I defend and explain in the second part my decision to use for Logical Argument Mapping- A method specifically designed for supporting reflective argumentation-only argument schemes that are deductively valid. © 2008 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved. - Requirements for reflective argument visualization tools: a case for using validity as a normative standard
Date: 2008
This paper formulates in the first part some requirements for a certain sort of computational argumentation systems, namely those which are designed for a very specific purpose: to motivate reflection on one's own thinking, and to induce cognitive change. This function of argumentation systems is important for argument-based conflict negotiations, deliberation processes, intercultural communication, text analysis, and learning through argument visualization. In all these situations success is only possible when people are able to change their mind, learn something, or start to reframe well-established ways of perceiving and interpreting things. Based on these requirements, I defend and explain in the second part my decision to use for Logical Argument Mapping---a method specifically designed for supporting reflective argumentation---only argument schemes that are deductively valid. - Requirements for reflective argument visualization tools: a case for using validity as a normative standard
Date: 2008
- Logical Argument Mapping: A cognitive-change-based method for building common ground
Date: December 2007
In this paper, I situate Logical Argument Mapping (LAM) within the broader context of IBIS-based Computer Supported Argument Visualization (CSAV) and Dialogue Mapping, and argument mapping as realized in Rationale. While the primary goal of these methods is to clarify issues and to augment cognitive processes, LAM's purpose is to motivate cognitive change by establishing a normative standard of argumentation. Copyright 2007 ACM. - Logical Argument Mapping: A cognitive-change-based method for building common ground
Date: 2007
- Power and Limits of Dynamical Systems Theory in Conflict Analysis
Date: 2007
- Power and limits of dynamical systems theory in conflict analysis
Date: 2007
- Searching for common ground on Hamas through Logical Argument Mapping
Date: 2007
Robert Fogelin (1985) formulated the thesis “that deep disagreements cannot be resolved through the use of argument, for they undercut the conditions essential to arguing.” The possibility of arguing presupposes “a shared background of beliefs and preferences,” and if such a background is not given, there is no way of “rational” dispute resolution. By contrast to this pessimistic view, I will propose a method that has been developed to overcome difficulties as described by Fogelin. - Charles Peirce: Formen kreativer Tätigkeit in der Mathematik
Date: 2005
- Problems of Understanding in Conflicts and a Semiotic Solution
Date: 2005
- Entdeckendes Lernen – semiotisch gefasst
Date: 2003
- Skizze einer semiotischen Theorie des Lernens
Date: 2001
- Zur Einheit mathematischen Wissens. Von Platon zu Gödel
Date: 2001
- Is there a Logic of Abduction?
Date: 2000
- Semiotik in der Mathematikdidaktik. Zu einer möglichen Bündelung von Forschungsinteressen innerhalb der GDM
Date: 2000
- The Role of "Intuition" in Knowledge Development
Date: 2000
- Zur Rolle von Modellen und Metaphern bei der Entwicklung neuer Theorien
Date: 1999
- Erkenntnistheoretische Grundlagen des Lernens: Lernen als Verallgemeinerung
Date: 1998
- Eine semiotische Modellierung von Verallgemeinerungsprozessen
Date: 1996
- AGORA-net: Web-based argument visualization as a tool for public deliberation and participation
- Cognitive and semiotic conditions of abductive creativity
- Cognitive and semiotic conditions of abductive creativity
- Seeing problems, seeing solutions. Abduction and diagrammatic reasoning in a semiotic theory of learning and scientific discovery
- Seeing problems, seeing solutions. Abduction and diagrammatic reasoning in a semiotic theory of learning and scientific discovery
- Visualizing Webs of Beliefs, Values, and Attitudes for Cross-Cultural Understanding
Working Papers
- Logical argument mapping: A method for overcoming cognitive problems of conflict management
Date: May 2014
A crucial problem of conflict management is that whatever happens in negotiations will be interpreted and framed by stakeholders based on their different belief systems and world views. This problem will be discussed in the first part of this article as the main cognitive problem of conflict management. The second part develops a general semiotic solution of this problem, based on Charles S. Peirce's concept of "diagrammatic reasoning." The basic idea is that by representing one's thought in diagrams, the conditions that determine interpretations can become visible, we can "experiment" with them, and we can change them eventually. The third part, finally, focuses on a concrete tool, called Logical Argument Mapping (LAM), that can be used in conflict management to perform such diagrammatic reasoning and to cope with the cognitive problems discussed in the first part. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the sovereignty over Jerusalem will be used as an example to show how LAM could work in practice.
- EarthAgora: A collaborative knowledge management tool. White Paper describing a possible EarthCube design
Date: October 2011
This white paper is about the management of knowledge in the philosophical sense of the term: knowledge as “justified true belief.” This paper focuses on the user of data, and the problem of organizing knowledge without having initially a clear understanding of the problem for which knowledge might be relevant. - Visualizing Ethical Controversies and Positions by Logical Argument Mapping (LAM) - A Manual
Date: 2011
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. - Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Cognitive Conditions and Tools
Date: 2010
Interdisciplinary collaboration figures centrally in frontier research in many fields. Participants in inter-disciplinary projects face problems they would not encounter within their own disciplines. Among those are problems of mutual understanding, of finding a language to communicate both within projects and with the scientific community and society at large, and of needing to master concepts and methods of different disciplines. We think that a concentrated research and development effort is necessary to analyze, on the one hand, cognitive conditions of successful understanding, communication, and interaction and, on the other, to develop specific tools and methods that support and facilitate inter-disciplinarity both in practice and in educational projects that prepare future generations of professionals within and outside of academia. Those tools need to be developed and their cognitive efficiency measured. - Visualizing Ethical Controversies and Positions by Logical Argument Mapping (LAM) – A Manual
Date: 2009
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. - Analyzing Framing Processes By Means Of Logical Argument Mapping
Date: 2008
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.
- Analyzing Framing Processes By Means Of Logical Argument Mapping
Date: 2008
- Reflective Argumentation
Date: 2008
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.
- Reflective Argumentation
Date: 2008
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 the 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. - Cognitive Conditions of Diagrammatic Reasoning
Date: 2007
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.
- Cognitive Conditions of Diagrammatic Reasoning
Date: 2007
- Cognitive Conditions of Diagrammatic Reasoning.
Date: 2007
- Power and limits of dynamical systems theory in conflict analysis
Date: 2007
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.
- Learning from People, Things, and Signs
Date: 2006
Starting from the observation that small children can count more objects than numbers—a phenomenon that I am calling the “lifeworld dependency of cognitionâ€â€”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.
KEY WORDS: Lifeworld dependency of cognition, implicit knowledge, distributed and situated cognition, cognitive apprenticeship, scaffolding, internalization, shared intentionality, semiotics, diagrammatic reasoning, pragmatism, Peirce, Vygotsky - Logical argument mapping: A method for overcoming cognitive problems of conflict management
Date: 2006
for homepage Atlanta: Beyond Kantianism and Utilitarism: Limits and possibilities of an ethical conception which focuses on forming one's character and life The article argues – continuing recent considerations formulated by Greg Pence and Jürgen Habermas – for the need of an ethical conception "beyond Kantianism and utilitarism" which focuses on "forming one's character and life" as a basis for justifying decisions and actions, and it discusses the "limits and possibilities" of this conception. The argumentation begins by discussing some weaknesses of the traditional approaches: They are unable to give clear answers to pressing questions as raised, for instance, by bio-medical methods like Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) and they are too abstract and rather distant from the concrete life, character, and experience of human beings. The limitations of this new approach are discussed by contrasting Christine Korsgaard's considerations concerning "practical identity" as a "source of normativity" with the problem of relativism. A solution is offered by a "genetic perspective," following Jonathan Bennett. - Seeing problems, seeing solutions. Abduction and diagrammatic reasoning in a theory of scientific discovery
Date: 2006
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.
- Seeing problems, seeing solutions. Abduction and diagrammatic reasoning in a theory of scientific discovery
Date: 2006
for homepage Atlanta: Beyond Kantianism and Utilitarism: Limits and possibilities of an ethical conception which focuses on forming one's character and life The article argues – continuing recent considerations formulated by Greg Pence and Jürgen Habermas – for the need of an ethical conception "beyond Kantianism and utilitarism" which focuses on "forming one's character and life" as a basis for justifying decisions and actions, and it discusses the "limits and possibilities" of this conception. The argumentation begins by discussing some weaknesses of the traditional approaches: They are unable to give clear answers to pressing questions as raised, for instance, by bio-medical methods like Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) and they are too abstract and rather distant from the concrete life, character, and experience of human beings. The limitations of this new approach are discussed by contrasting Christine Korsgaard's considerations concerning "practical identity" as a "source of normativity" with the problem of relativism. A solution is offered by a "genetic perspective," following Jonathan Bennett. - Exploring epistemological approaches to argumentation: From evaluation standards to the practice of argumentation
Date: 2005
The paper distinguishes, in its first part, different epistemological approaches to argumenta-tion 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 fo-cuses 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.
Date: 2005
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.
- The curse of the Hegelian heritage: “Dialectic,” “contradiction,” and “dialectical logic” in Activity Theory
Date: 2005
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. - Science Education across Europe (SEE!). A Project on Generalisation in Science: Overcoming the Split between the Two Cultures. A proposal for the European Science Education Initiative (FP6-2003-Science and Society-5).
Date: 2003
- Die Symmetrie von Subjektbezug und Objektivität wissenschaftlicher Verallgemeinerung. Untersuchungen zur Begründung wissenschaftlicher Rationalität im Anschluß an die mathematische Philosophie von Charles S. Peirce.
Date: 1997
- Eine semiotische Modellierung von Lernprozessen. Peirce und das Wechselverhältnis von Abduktion und Vergegenständlichung
Date: November 1996
Peirces triadic sign relation allows a fruitful semiotic reconstruction of the learning process: According to Peirce, every cognition is an „interpretant“ or the „proper significate outcome of a sign“. This means that it is a part of a genuinely triadic relation, the other elements of which are an „object“ and a „ground“ or „idea“. The ground is an element of generality such as a concept, theory, skill or habit. It mediates between object and interpretant. Insofar as the quantity and quality of possible cognitions is dependent of the range of these mediating elements, learning can be understood as the development of these elements and therefore as generalization. The thesis of my paper is that the possibility of generalization can be explained by the dialectic of two processes. On the one hand, in confrontation with a problematic object or situation, in order to explain or understand it, the learner is forced to build a hypothesis. This process was called „abduction“ by Peirce. For Peirce abduction is a kind of logical inference, because the building of a hypothesis can’t be explained by chance alone. It can be shown that the logicity of abduction is based on the supposition that the generation of a hypothesis is also mediated by elements of generality. On the other hand every hypothesis must be tested; it must be objectified for further observation and experimentation. Peirce called this object-creation-process a „hypostatic abstraction“. - Die Philosophie der Mathematik bei Charles S. Peirce im Kontext seines "evolutionären Realismus". Zum Peirceschen Kontinuitätsprinzip.
Date: July 1994
Internet Publications
- Analyzing Framing Processes in Conflicts and Communication by Means of Logical Argument Mapping
Date: 2011
The primary goal of this chapter is to present a new method—called Logical Argument Mapping (LAM)—for the analysis of framing processes as they occur in any communication, but especially in conflicts. I start with a distinction between boundary setting, meaning construction, and sensemaking as three forms or aspects of framing, and argue that crucial for the resolution of frame-based controversies is our ability to deal with those “webs” of mutually supporting beliefs that determine sensemaking processes. Since any analysis of framing in conflicts and communication is itself influenced by sensemaking—there is no “frame-neutrality”—the main problem for an analyst is to cope with his or her own cognitive limitations. LAM offers a solution to this problem. The method will be exemplified with an analysis of two conflicting interpretations of how the international community should deal with Hamas after its election victory in 2006. - Understanding Controversies and Ill-Structured Problems Through Argument Visualization. Curriculum and Learning Materials for Problem-based Learning in Small Groups of Students Who Work Autonomously on Projects with the Interactive AGORA Software, Includi
Date: 2011
- Possibilities, limits, and conditions of a “philosophy in the field".
Second International Workshop on the Philosophy of/as Interdisciplinarity, Neversdorf/Hamburg
Date: September 2010
- Logical argument mapping (LAM): A cognitive-change-based method for building common ground.
Date: November 2007
- Logical argument mapping (LAM): A tool for problem solving,
argumentation, deliberation, and conflict management.
Date: March 2007
- Power and limits of dynamical systems theory in conflict analysis
Date: 2007
- Framing: An Epistemological Analysis
Date: 2006
- Was ist Mathematik? Eine Unterscheidung mathematischer Tätigkeiten.
Date: 2003
- Peirces Zeichenbegriff: seine Funktionen, seine phänomenologische Grundlegung und seine Differenzierung
Date: 2001
- The 1903 Classification of Triadic Sign-Relations
Date: 2001
- Semiotik in der Mathematikdidaktik. Ein Instrument für eine Didaktik des 21. Jahrhunderts
Date: 2000
- Theorien neuronalen Lernens in ihrer historischen Entwicklung.
Date: 2000
- Erkenntnistheoretische Grundlagen des Lernens: Lernen als Verallgemeinerung
Date: 1998
Softwares
Other Publications
- Hume's argument that empirical knowledge cannot be certain, from the Enquires. Argument map.
Date: 2015
- Deductive argument visualization stimulates reflection on implicit background assumptions. Argument map.
Date: 2014
- Developing scientific hypotheses and experimental designs in form of an argumentation. Loe-wi's crucial experiment on chemical neurotransmission. Argument map.
Date: 2014
- Heyns's 2013 argument in the Guardian that lethal autonomous robots
(LARs) should be banned (argument map).
Date: 2014
- Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2014). Heyns's 2013 argument in the Guardian that lethal autonomous robots (LARs) should be banned (argument map).
Date: 2014
- Hypothesis generation and testing: A template for biomedical research. Argument map.
Date: 2014
- Loewi's argument that neuro-transmission works with chemical signals instead of electrical (short version). Argument map.
Date: 2014
- Ron Arkin's 2013 argument for a moratorium on deployment, but no ban
of lethal autonmous robots. Argument map.
Date: 2014
- Sparrow's 2012 argument that robotic weapons are disastrous for peace.
Argument map.
Date: 2014
- Why the presentation of arguments in logical form has advantages. Argument map.
Date: 2013
- Diagrams as Scaffolds for Creativity
Date: 2010
Based on a typology of five basic forms of abduction, I propose a new definition of abductive insight that empha sizes in particular the inferential structure of a belief system that is able to explain a phenomenon after a new, abductive ly created component has been added to this system or the entire system has been abductively restructured. My thesis is, first, that the argumentative structure of the pursued problem solution guides abductive creativity and, second, that diagrammatic reasoning—if conceptualized according to the requirements defined by Charles Peirce—can support this guidance. This support is mainly possible based on the normative power of the system of representation that has to be used to construct diagrams and to perform experiments with them. - Hume's argument that empirical knowledge is impossible. Argument map.
Date: 2010
- LAM map of Nagel's core argument in The Problem of Global Justice -2005. Argument Map
Date: 2010
- The Debate about the Stern-Review and the Economics of Climate Change. Argument Map
Date: 2010
This argument map represents the basic argumentation that Sir Nicholas H. Stern and his collaborators developed in The Economics of Climate Change in form of a logical argument map (Cambridge, UK, 2007: Cambridge University Press; online: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm). The map includes Stern's argumentation in blue; criticism of several of Stern's assumptions by "main stream economists" in red; and critique by "environmentalist economists" in orange. This way, the argument map represents a complex debate on one of the most influential books on the economics of climate change.
- Argument Visualization in the Political Arena: The Debate on Global Climate Engineering. Argument Map
Date: 2009
- An exemplary large-scale debate on global climate engineering.
Date: 2008
- Semiotik in der Mathematikdidaktik. Lernen anhand von Zeichen und Repräsentationen [Semiotics in mathematics education. Learning by means of signs and representations]
Date: 2006
- Xu Huiying, Humankind Takes up Environmental Ethics. Argument map.
In: Chinese Education & Society
Date: 2004
- Heyns's 2013 argument that all states should declare moratoria on lethal
autonomous robots. Argument map.