Hi power users:
There is an interesting resource that touches upon critical thinking:
https://www.logos.com/product/28541/biblical-logic-in-theory-and-practice-refuting-the-fallacies-of-humanism-darwinism-atheism-and-just-plain-stupidity
Our great poster MJ has mentioned that it would be nice to have an argument mapping module in L8 to allow persons to make analysis that is useful.
Following her lead I checked a bit to find interesting info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map
The wiki above has many links that take to very interesting articles like:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120708000509/http://images.austhink.com/pdf/Claudia-Alvarez-thesis.pdf
Seems to suggest that the study of critical thinking in particular surpasses the study of philosophy in general to develop the skills.
https://watermark.silverchair.com/mgm030.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAlYwggJSBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggJDMIICPwIBADCCAjgGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMmuC4ArmXYFqpr5GKAgEQgIICCQxWCFAR1kBdKtJtjfePCPE7HyV3YZWou70GKyDWtUcD7HHn4HOiJXMNleyOOhPqw5h7RVICTcjTxgfkD9LPL6m--J-cCLXbvCWfmrIoPrFsXKXNTBnKk5uojTkYnNCF3sfWgx6lQuig29IIq2UrCVEC1DsBYejlE2d6axqA_U9zcUmvOL4KpySYlpJSJ1vlHGrDqhL_v8AyrJm3uQzhkhlLgKNKAivG5iN6VoZVWtUwbxuMD8fp9gxclAhfkZtOCZBvAX9wmlwe9Mn2PW8nluH5p33hqGoOuM3ke6lqNAzrr7O9gYXsOQkOvOdegshVV3m-c5tFRm7RFSsRA5zYTjGk0608qN5bdCd6-HfzHlGcZHv34f1Fyn5ayLrb6tQ1pFEHotktQIrwOtTJ1gi3AwFOrH8gZhcyTeQ1PnDP7ufDkTBSBpxOW1wO04ANE8AH2t3f65jSWa59nnt5Uyt1g7MuOHX5PkYq4IZRuUlSNNEjYp6ID5YYh47kNZNq7kw2eTWCHx_UIQKqvzN7v4TvqVhsTjhnVzEJaQ8v1w8Mdx-BAg_BAFuOO40KQizxTKlouv6p8y7K37mvW6FAWZ-i5YNHfD1sZWcsYUKgUhqo2eZiXn7tYqBx_e71lF-l0PDJvM4GeDqyuA3ecTKssywdCX9DrKf7RnrA1UfXIiZYStR_jK7_6nxBOqjv
A good overview (way long url).LOL.
http://www.georgbrun.ch/publications/Brun-Betz-AnalysingPracticalArgumentation.pdf
More specific about practical argumentation.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040612173036/http://www.stanford.edu/~rhorn/a/topic/arg/artclCmptrSpArgmttn.pdf
Looking at horizons.
Then some pages that are indirectly referred to:
http://projects.kmi.open.ac.uk/scholonto/software.html
And just googling:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/thoughts-thinking/201811/improving-critical-thinking-through-argument-mapping
To put things in context.
But the important thing I discovered is that I do not have to go to Kindle to find resources about the topic:
https://ebooks.noet.com/search?query=critical%20thinking&sortBy=Relevance&limit=60&page=1&ownership=all
So MJ, once again, thanks for your very relevant input, always in a didactic type mode, and hope L8 does develop some module adjustment to allow canvas or other function to have the ability to do basic argument maps.
Feel free to share in some more resources, links, articles, or your ideas, etc.
Peace and grace.
👍
I've often wanted this capability in Logos. I think it'd be right up there with morphing and classing.
That said, I'd want it directly in resources and Bibles (vs a separate view like mind mapping). The wiki article above has an example I copied below. In theory, you could use the Logos notes capability to look similar. But not really usable, since there'd be lots of linkages.
I can easily see, users would 'violently' argue their needs ... difficult to implement. And user population limited. Easier to just tag the author as screw-lose, and proceed to agreeable (smart) authors.
So. I'd suspect external software may be the better proposition?
I’ll add my three votes if someone wants to make a request
For those interested in a style used in Australia education, look for Argumentative in one of its many incarnations -- Argunet has a new look in Argudown. Rationale is part of the same family of tools. Out of the University of Dundee comes a slightly more technical version Araucaria. For a rundown of other products see http://www.phil.cmu.edu/projects/argument_mapping/
Thank you MJ for the info.
Do you know if there is a resource (s), that actually do argument mapping for some books of the Bible? Supposedly many of Paul's writings are argumentative, it would be interesting to see that diagrammed.
How about the relation of discourse analysis and argument map? is there any? are they similar?
Thanks ahead of time for your input.
It would be great if Noet had bundle promotions also.
resource (s), that actually do argument mapping for some books of the Bible?
It's not as straight-forward as you might imagine. Most of his arguments look initially stand-alone ... you can write software to visually map them in the text. That is, until you become familiar with 2nd Temple arguments, and then the mapping becomes naive. As discussed a while back, also there's more in what arguments he (presumably) chose not to use. Or did, but the writings didn't survive.
Do you know if there is a resource (s), that actually do argument mapping for some books of the Bible?
I would be surprised if Hebrews hasn't been charted by someone. I know I ran into a couple in a commentary recently. And this resource uses them Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 2010..
Naselli, Andrew David. How to Understand and Apply the New Testament: Twelve Steps from Exegesis to Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2017. uses arcing, bracketing, text flow diagram, etc. to trace the linguistic flow of an argument - unlike standard argument maps these no do remove examples, repetitions, etc. from the text - those elements that repeat to insure understanding, keep the readers interest etc. This means the results are closer to Discourse Analysis than argument analysis ... you still have the whole tree not the trunk/skeleton holding it together.
Kirk, J. R. Daniel. Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008. has a couple of simplified arguments, illustrating their use in the real world.
Kunin, Seth Daniel. We Think What We Eat: Neo-Structuralist Analysis of Israelite Food Rules and Other Cultural and Textual Practices. Vol. 412. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004. illustrates the path from an argument map to a structuralist equation.
A user shared an approach at Tip for Argument Mapping, and there is a series of maps of a debate at https://christiandebateanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/frank-turek-vs-david-silverman-the-reality-debate/ which I've only given a cursory look.
Thanks for the info MJ.
I am now realizing that interesting studies into the relation are being undertaken. What is incredible is that many argue having as an underlying thrust "moral indignation" in a context that there is usually "amoral vs immoral" action (i.e. morality not taken into consideration while making decisions.
Very interesting indeed.
https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=ossaarchive
So in theory there are efforts to integrate: discourse analysis, argumentation / rhetoric, and the like to work pieces of opinion journalism aimed at social expression activism that has an moral undertone in a free speech country even though it is secular in theory.
This is all interesting.
Thanks again for bringing up the argument map concept.
The above example in the article the financial context is used as sample, highlighting something talked about in other threads: the need in capitalistic societies for a Corporate chaplaincy, that can provide input as to the morality of proposed decisions.
Just as the US military is using chaplains in staff positions to give their opinion of the morality of planned operations. (or at least it did at some point).
