Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘visual argumentation’

4th Summer Institute On Argumentation:-

Multi‐Modal Arguments: Making sense of images (and other non‐verbal content) in Argument

May 27-31, 2013 

  • Can works of art, films, virtual realities and other kinds of non-verbal content operate as arguments?
  • Why have some objected to this suggestion? What can we learn from their objections?
  • How can the various theoretical perspectives that make up argumentation theory, such as informal logic, rhetoric, dialectics, dialogue theory, and discourse analysis, account for multi-modal arguments?
  • How can we construct a comprehensive theory of argument that makes room for, explains, and allows us to assess, arguments of this sort?

In conjunction with the tenth OSSA (Ontario Society for the Study of Argument) conference, CRRAR will offer a summer institute on multimodal arguments.

One trend in the development of argumentation theory is an  increasingly broad conception of argument which recognizes (among other things) the use of “multi-modal”  elements – images, music, and other non-verbal components – as key components of many arguments. In this course we consider the questions that this raises. (more…)

Read Full Post »

The program for the University of Windsor symposium on Psychology, Emotion and the Human Sciences is now available at http://www.thehumansciences.com/programme/.  Registration should be available in a few days.

Read Full Post »

As anyone who has attended one of Erik Krabbe‘s talks knows, doodles, sketches, and cartoons are signs of great genius. I first had the pleasure of seeing his drawings in a CRRAR summer seminar a few years ago. I have to admit that being engaged by the various drawings he used there, and in the talks of his that I’ve had the good fortune to attend since then, has inspired me to re-incorporate that sort of visual element in my own classes. Being a former art major with a drawing background before converting to philosophy, I had used drawings as what I then thought of as a crutch when I first started teaching. I later abandoned the practice when I felt more secure in my role as a teacher. It turns out that I may have been terribly wrong to toss out such a powerful pedagogical tool. My drawings, it seems, were in no way a crutch. On the contrary, if Sunni Brown (the speaker in the video) is right, they are a pedagogical enhancement.  Not only are doodles often funny and engaging, she claims, but they enhance focus as well as other dimensions of critical thinking too.

While the pedagogical dimensions are interesting, equally if not more interesting is the claim that human beings may have an innate “sense” of visual literacy that develops in a regular and predictable way.  Those working on visual argumentation may find this part of the talk very salutary indeed.

All in all, it’s an interesting 6 minutes of video.  Enjoy.

Edit: Today this video popped up in my Twitter feed courtesy of @LilyLivingstone. It perfectly illustrates the pedagogical power of the doodle in mathematics. Good stuff!

Read Full Post »

CMNA X

The 10th International Workshop on
Computational Models of Natural Argument
in association with ECAI 2010

www.cmna.info/CMNA10

16 August 2010
Lisbon, Portugal

AIMS AND SCOPE

The series of workshops on Computational Models of Natural Argument is continuing to attract high quality submissions from researchers around the world since its inception in 2001. Like the past editions, CMNA 10 acts to nurture and provide succor to the ever growing community working on Argument and Computation, a field developed in recent years overlapping Argumentation Theory and Artificial Intelligence.

AI has witnessed a prodigious growth in uses of argumentation throughout many of its subdisciplines: agent system negotiation protocols that demonstrate higher levels of sophistication and robustness; argumentation-based models of evidential relations and legal processes that are more expressive; groupwork tools that use argument to structure interaction and debate; computer-based learning tools that exploit monological and dialogical argument structures in designing pedagogic environments; decision support systems that build upon argumentation theoretic models of deliberation to better integrate with human reasoning; and models of knowledge engineering structured around core concepts of argument to simplify knowledge elicitation and representation problems. Furthermore, benefits have not been unilateral for AI, as demonstrated by the increasing presence of AI scholars in classical argumentation theory events and journals, and AI implementations of argument finding application in both research and pedagogic practice within philosophy and argumentation theory.

The workshop focuses on the issue of modelling “natural” argumentation. Naturalness may involve, for example, the use of means which are more visual than linguistic to illustrate a point, such as graphics or multimedia; or the use of more sophisticated rhetorical devices, interacting at various layers of abstraction; or the exploitation of “extra-rational” characteristics of the audience, taking into account emotions and affective factors.

Contributions are solicited addressing, but not limited to, the following areas of interest:

  • The characteristics of natural arguments: ontological aspects and cognitive issues.
  • The use of models from informal logic and argumentation theory, and in particular, approaches to specific schools of thought developed in informal logic and argumentation.
  • Rhetoric and affect: the role of emotions, personalities, etc. in models of argumentation.
  • The roles of licentiousness and deceit and the ethical implications of implemented systems demonstrating such features.
  • The linguistic characteristics of natural argumentation, including discourse markers, sentence format, referring expressions, and style.
  • Persuasive discourse processing (discourse goals and structure, speaker/hearer models, content selection, etc.).
  • Language dependence and multilingual approaches.
  • Empirical work based on corpora looking at these topics are especially welcomed.
  • Non-monotonic, defeasible and uncertain argumentation.
  • Natural argumentation and media: visual arguments, multi-modal arguments, spoken arguments.
  • Models of argumentation in multi-agent systems inspired by or based upon theories of human argument.
  • Empirically driven models of argument in AI and Law.
  • Evaluative arguments and their application in AI systems (such as decision support and advice giving).
  • Issues of domain specificity, and in particular, the independence of argumentation techniques from the domain of application.
  • Applications of computer supported collaborative argumentation, in realistic domains in which argument plays a key role, including pedagogy, e-democracy and public debate.
  • Applications of argumentation based systems, including, for example, the pedagogical, health-related, political, and promotional.
  • Methods to better convey the structure of complex argument, including representation and summarisation.
  • Tools for interacting with structures of argument, including visualisation tools and interfaces supporting natural, stylised or formal dialogue.
  • The building of computational resources such as online corpora related to argumentation.

PROGRAMME COMMITTEE

Workshop co-chairs:
Chris Reed, University of Dundee, UK
Floriana Grasso, University of Liverpool, UK
Nancy Green, University of North Carolina Greensboro, USA

This year’s programme committee is to be confirmed, but will be similar to the PC for 2009:

Leila Amgoud, IRIT, France
Katie Atkinson, University of Liverpool, UK
Guido Boella, University of Turin, Italy
Karl Branting, The MITRE Corporation, Hanover, MD
Giuseppe Carenini, University of British Columbia, Canada
Chrysanne DiMarco, University of Waterloo, Canada
Tom Gordon, Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin, Germany
Marco Guerini, FBK-IRST, Trento, Italy
Helmut Horacek, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken Germany
Anthony Hunter, University College London, UK
David Moore, Leeds Metropolitan University, UK
Fabio Paglieri, ISTC-CNR, Rome, Italy
Vincenzo Pallotta, University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Cécile Paris, CSIRO, Sydney, Australia
Paul Piwek, Open University, UK
Henry Prakken, Universities of Utrecht and Groningen, The Netherlands
Sara Rubinelli, University of Lucerne, Switzerland
Patrick Saint-Dizier, IRIT-CNRS, Toulouse, France
Oliviero Stock, ITC-IRST, Trento, Italy
Doug Walton, University of Windsor, Ontario
Simon Wells, University of Dundee, UK
Adam Wyner, King’s College, London, UK

SUBMISSIONS

The workshop encourages submissions in three categories:

  • Long papers, either reporting on completed work or offering a polemic discussion on a burning issue (up to 10 pages)
  • Short papers describing work in progress (up to 5 pages)
  • Demonstration of implemented systems: submissions should be accompanied by written reports (up to 3 pages). Authors should contact the organisers to ensure suitable equipment is available.

It is highly recommended to submit papers using the final camera-ready formatting style specified in the ECAI style guide (except for the number of pages) available at http://ecai2010.appia.pt/

Paper submission will be handled by the Easychair conference system: please visit http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=cmna10

Deadline for long papers submission:   9 May  2010
Deadline for short papers submission:  6 June 2010
Notification to authors:              14 June 2010
Camera-ready version:                 26 June 2010

CMNA 10:                     Monday 16 August 2010

Authors of accepted papers will be invited to submit a revised version for the Routledge/Taylor & Francis journal, Argument and Computation.

Read Full Post »

Have a look at this interesting sequence of images by David J. Staley over at Kairos.  When you get there give it a few minutes to cycle through all the images.  This series of images is put forward as a visual argument.  Clearly it’s visual (well mostly, at any rate), but is it an argument?  If so, what is the conclusion of the argument and what are the premises?

Read Full Post »