Published by MacroVU Press in support of the Visual Language Project at Stanford University, which is directed by Robert E. Horn, author of Visual Language: Global Communication for the 21st Century.
The UPDATE summarizes the research and applications of argumentation
mapping methodology applied to the Turing claims that computers
will eventually be able to think.
In this issue:
1. Welcome to "The UPDATE"
2. Publication: Can Computers Think? Argumentation Maps
3. Quick Intro: What is "Argumentation Mapping?"
4. Project: Summarize Frontiers of Consciousness Research
5. Review: Stephen Toulmin comments on "Mapping Great Debates."
6. Software for Drafting: Inspiration
7. Software for Final Publication: Freehand
1. WELCOME TO "The UPDATE"
A recent full-page review in the journal "Nature", "New Scientist" (<http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990710/beyond.html>) and in the "Philosophers' Magazine" (Summer, 1999) have focused attention on our project. We've been asked a lot of questions about the field, so we've launched this newsletter.
Our goal is to keep you up-to-date on the field of argumentation
mapping. We will summarize the projects we're working on, both
research and applications. We'll review important books and articles
in the field and present brief critiques of important issues in
the field.
--Bob Horn, Project Director
2. PUBLICATION: CAN COMPUTERS THINK? ARGUMENTATION MAPS
The first major product of our project, Mapping Great Debates: Can Computers Think?, is a new way to portray intellectual history. It is a series of 7 poster-sized wall maps that chart the entire history of the intelligent machines debate. The project charts the arguments put forth since 1950 by more than 380 cognitive scientists, philosophers, artificial intelligence researchers, mathematicians, psychologists, and others.
Each map plots over 100 major claims, each of which is summarized succinctly and placed in visual relationship to the other arguments that it supports or disputes. Claims are further organized into more than 70 issue areas, or types, of arguments. There are over 800 major claims, rebuttals, andcounter-rebuttals deemed to be original and important enough in the argument to be represented.
Each of the 3 ft x 4 ft maps are elegantly printed in color. They contain several hundred icons, illustrations, and over 60 photographs to help the reader navigate through the maps and provide easy-to-return-to landmarks.
Accompanying the set of maps is a small handbook containing a complete bibliography with more than 450 citations, an index of the protagonists, an introduction to the mapmaking methodology, an in-depth exploration of the cartographic metaphor, a discussion of the major criteria for selecting the arguments, and a list of frequently asked questions on making and using the maps.
To see what the maps look like and how they work, visit the publisher's website: <www.macrovu.com>
3. QUICK INTRO TO "ARGUMENTATION MAPPING"
For the past 5 years, our argumentation mapping project at Stanford has focused on building large visual diagrams of major philosophical arguments. In one way they represent a new genre of diagraming, as conceptual "maps" of major ongoing debates. On a much broader scope, they present a new way of showing how world-wide, interdisciplinary debates are taking place, hence the name argumentation mapping.
The maps are used for teaching, learning, and research. In teaching they provide overviews of the big picture that are often very difficult to convey in any other way, especially in diffuse, sprawling, and interdisciplinary arguments.
The study of argumentation has been with us at least since Aristotle's Rhetoric. In modern times, Stephen Toulmin redirected the field by focusing attention on how debates are actually carried out rather than on the formal, deductive presentation of arguments. We have been building on his work.
Our Project sees its mission as building a robust methodology of argumentation mapping, and conducting research on its applications in education, research, and public policy debates.
4. PROJECT: SUMMARIZE FRONTIERS OF CONSCIOUSNESS RESEARCH
Our group has been awarded one of ten initial University of Arizona research grants to begin mapping the interdisciplinary research on consciousness (neurophysiology, psychology, cognitive science, philosophy). Initially, we will focus most of our work on the so-called "hard problem" in consciousness studies (i.e. How does consciousness arise from a material world?) As a result, this project will broaden our argumentation methodology by allowing us to invent ways of dealing with debates about comprehensive models and worldviews.
For more information: <http://www.macrovu.com/test/cns.html>
5. REVIEW: STEPHEN TOULMIN COMMENTS ON "MAPPING GREAT DEBATES."
The following is a review written for "The UPDATE" by Stephen Toulmin, professor of philosophy emeritus, Northwestern University. Toulmin, a student of Wittgenstein, originated the study of argumentation analysis in 1957. He is the author of "Cosmopolis" and "Wittgenstein's Vienna." The review:
When I published The Uses of Argument in the late 1950s, it had a limited purpose: to drive a wedge between deductive systems of logic and the substantive reasoning we use in our everyday life and affairs. Philosophers (I hoped, largely in vain) would then be free to discuss epistemological issues without being distracted by the puzzles arising from the Cartesian ideal of 'geometrical' knowledge. A further invention was needed in order to show the value of my claim. Robert Horn's explorations into the visual display of information put flesh on Ludwig Wittgenstein's account offactual language as an instrument for 'representing' states of affairs; and his novel device of 'argumentation mapping' is a fresh and powerful step forward in the display of information, and the analysis of the complex issues that face us at the end of the 20th century.
His method of argumentation analysis is a valuable tool, not merely for philosophy teachers, but also in setting out and appraising the networks of claims involved in major public debates today: Whether these are about (say) the elimination of nuclear weapons, the strengths and weaknesses of 'market' economies, the control of drugs and other hazardous substances, or many more. It is gratifying to think that my modest step forty years ago was one starting point for such a striking and powerful innovation. Robert Horn's first, carefully worked out presentation of the issue of 'machine intelligence' is a model deserving to be followed by a dozen others. It deserves every success.
6. SOFTWARE FOR DRAFTING: INSPIRATION
We get asked what software we use for our argumentation maps.
Recently, we have begun to use a program called "Inspiration"
for initial drafts of the maps. It is particularly easy to use
when making boxes linked by arrows. We like that it is possible
to label the arrows. It is easy to change the structure of the
linkages. Inspiration also converts the tree-like
structures of our maps into outline form with a single click.
It comes in both Mac and PC versions.
For more information: <www.inspiration.com>
7. SOFTWARE FOR FINAL PUBLICATION: FREEHAND
For those of you who inquired, we did the final publishing version of the "Can Computers Think?" maps in Freehand, which is a vector-drawing program.
For more information: <http://www.macromedia.com/software/freehand/>
The CAN COMPUTERS THINK? UPDATE is free.
To subscribe/unsubscribe, email <info@macrovu.com>
Editor and Publisher: Robert E. Horn, visiting scholar, Stanford
University
Please share the Can Computers Think? Update with your friends and colleagues; we ask only that you keep the fine print attached:
Entire contents copyright 2000 R.E. Horn The Can Computers
Think? Project at Stanford University