The Experts below are selected from a list of 153 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Michael H G Hoffmann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
analyzing framing processes in conflicts and communication by means of Logical Argument mapping
2011Co-Authors: Michael H G HoffmannAbstract: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.
-
analyzing framing processes by means of Logical Argument mapping
Social Science Research Network, 2008Co-Authors: Michael H G HoffmannAbstract:The primary goal of this paper 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, sense making, and meaning construction as three forms or aspects of framing, and argue for the thesis that crucial for the resolution of frame-based 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.
-
Logical Argument mapping a cognitive change based method for building common ground
International Conference on Pragmatic Web, 2007Co-Authors: Michael H G HoffmannAbstract: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.
-
searching for common ground on hamas through Logical Argument mapping
2007Co-Authors: Michael H G HoffmannAbstract: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.
-
Logical Argument mapping a method for overcoming cognitive problems of conflict management
International Journal of Conflict Management, 2005Co-Authors: Michael H G HoffmannAbstract: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–Palestin-ian conflict on the sovereignty over Jerusalem will be used as an exam-ple to show how LAM could work in practice.
John E J Rasko - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
raising the standard changes to the australian code of good manufacturing practice cgmp for human blood and blood components human tissues and human cellular therapy products
Pathology, 2014Co-Authors: Craig Wright, Z Velickovic, Ross Brown, Stephen Larsen, Janet L Macpherson, John Gibson, John E J RaskoAbstract:Summary In Australia, manufacture of blood, tissues and bioLogicals must comply with the federal laws and meet the requirements of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) Manufacturing Principles as outlined in the current Code of Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP). The Therapeutic Goods Order (TGO) No. 88 was announced concurrently with the new cGMP, as a new standard for therapeutic goods. This order constitutes a minimum standard for human blood, tissues and cellular therapeutic goods aimed at minimising the risk of infectious disease transmission. The order sets out specific requirements relating to donor selection, donor testing and minimisation of infectious disease transmission from collection and manufacture of these products. The Therapeutic Goods Manufacturing Principles Determination No. 1 of 2013 references the human blood and blood components, human tissues and human cellular therapy products 2013 (2013 cGMP). The name change for the 2013 cGMP has allowed a broadening of the scope of products to include human cellular therapy products. It is difficult to directly compare versions of the code as deletion of some clauses has not changed the requirements to be met, as they are found elsewhere amongst the various guidelines provided. Many sections that were specific for blood and blood components are now less prescriptive and apply to a wider range of cellular therapies, but the general overall intent remains the same. Use of ’should’ throughout the document instead of ’must’ allows flexibility for alternative processes, but these systems will still require justification by relevant Logical Argument and validation data to be acceptable to TGA. The cGMP has seemingly evolved so that specific issues identified at audit over the last decade have now been formalised in the new version. There is a notable risk management approach applied to most areas that refer to process justification and decision making. These requirements commenced on 31 May 2013 and a 12 month transition period applies for implementation by manufacturers. The cGMP and TGO update follows the implementation of the TGA regulatory bioLogicals framework for cell and tissue based therapies announced in 2011. One implication for licenced TGA facilities is that they must implement the 2013 cGMP, TGO 88 and other relevant TGOs together, as they are intricately linked. This review is intended to assist manufacturers by comparing the 2000 version of the cGMP, to the new 2013 cGMP, noting that the new Code extends to include human cellular therapy products.
Justin Halberda - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
is this a dax which i see before me use of the Logical Argument disjunctive syllogism supports word learning in children and adults
Cognitive Psychology, 2006Co-Authors: Justin HalberdaAbstract:Many authors have argued that word-learning constraints help guide a word-learner's hypotheses as to the meaning of a newly heard word. One such class of constraints derives from the observation that word-learners of all ages prefer to map novel labels to novel objects in situations of referential ambiguity. In this paper I use eye-tracking to document the mental computations that support this word-learning strategy. Adults and preschoolers saw images of known and novel objects, and were asked to find the referent of known and novel labels. Experiment 1 shows that adults systematically reject a known distractor (e.g. brush) before mapping a novel label (e.g. "dax") to a novel object. This is consistent with the proposal that participants worked through a Disjunctive Syllogism (i.e. Process-of-Elimination) to motivate the mapping of the novel label to the novel object. Experiment 2 shows that processing is similar for adults performing an implicit Disjunctive Syllogism (e.g. "the winner is the dax") and an explicit Disjunctive Syllogism (e.g. "the winner is not the iron"). Experiment 3 reveals that similar processes govern preschoolers' mapping of novel labels. Taken together, these results suggest that word-learners use Disjunctive Syllogism to motivate the mapping of novel labels to novel objects.
Anthony Hunter - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
structural properties for deductive Argument systems
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 7958 L pp. 278-28, 2013Co-Authors: Anthony Hunter, Stefan WoltranAbstract:There have been a number of proposals for using deductive Arguments for instantiating abstract Argumentation. These take a set of formulae as a knowledgebase, and generate a graph where each node is a Logical Argument and each arc is a Logical attack. This then raises the question of whether for a specific Logical Argument system S, and for any graph G, there is a knowledgebase such that S generates G. If it holds, then it can be described as a kind of "structural" property of the system. If it fails then, it means that there are situations that cannot be captured by the system. In this paper, we explore some features, and the significance, of such structural properties. © 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
-
structural properties for deductive Argument systems
European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty, 2013Co-Authors: Anthony Hunter, Stefan WoltranAbstract:There have been a number of proposals for using deductive Arguments for instantiating abstract Argumentation. These take a set of formulae as a knowledgebase, and generate a graph where each node is a Logical Argument and each arc is a Logical attack. This then raises the question of whether for a specific Logical Argument system S, and for any graph G, there is a knowledgebase such that S generates G. If it holds, then it can be described as a kind of "structural" property of the system. If it fails then, it means that there are situations that cannot be captured by the system. In this paper, we explore some features, and the significance, of such structural properties.
-
a relevance theoretic framework for constructing and deconstructing enthymemes
Journal of Logic and Computation, 2012Co-Authors: Elizabeth Black, Anthony HunterAbstract:In most proposals for logic-based models of Argumentation dialogues between agents, the Arguments exchanged are Logical Arguments of the form where Φ is a set of formulae (called the support) and α is a formula (called the claim) such that Φ is consistent and Φ entails α. However, Arguments presented by real-world agents do not normally fit the mould of being Logical Arguments. They are normally enthymemes, and so they only explicitly represent some of the premises for entailing their claim and/or they do not explicitly state their claim. For example, for a claim that ‘you need an umbrella today’, a husband may give his wife the premise ‘the weather report predicts rain’. Clearly, the premise does not entail the claim, but it is easy for the wife to identify the assumed knowledge used by the husband in order to reconstruct the intended Argument correctly (i.e. ‘if the weather report predicts rain, then you need an umbrella’). Whilst humans are constantly handling examples like this, proposals for logic-based formalizations of the process remain underdeveloped. In this article, we present a logic-based framework for handling enthymemes, some design features of which are influenced by aspects of relevance theory (proposed by Sperber and Wilson). In particular, we use the ideas of maximizing cognitive effect and minimizing cognitive effort in order to enable a proponent of an intended Logical Argument to construct an enthymeme appropriate for the intended recipient, and for the intended recipient to deconstruct the intended Logical Argument from the enthymeme. We relate our framework back to Sperber andWilson's relevance theory via some formal properties.
Melis Arzu Uyulgan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
step by step learning using the i diagram in the systematic qualitative analyses of cations within a guided inquiry learning approach
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2017Co-Authors: Nalan Akkuzu, Melis Arzu UyulganAbstract:The current study examines the performance and achievement of students in the Systematic Qualitative Analyses of Cations (SQACs). We sought answers to questions such as, ‘What are the students’ levels of performance?’ and ‘What is the relation between the average scores for performance and achievement?’. This was done by using the I diagram as a tool within a Guided Inquiry Learning Approach (GILA), which is based on the constructivist theory. The sample consisted of sophomore students (N = 31) taking the Analytical Chemistry Laboratory-I course and attending the Chemistry Teaching Program of the Faculty of Education of a state university in the Aegean region of Turkey. During the analyses, the students attempted to solve specific problems and find the results of their qualitative analyses as they followed the sections of I diagram step by step under the guidance of researchers. They also tried to find solutions to problems through Logical reasoning and discussions with each other. A positive correlation was found between the achievement and performance of the students. During the experimental process based on the GILA, the students were able to structure their knowledge more clearly by carrying out cation analysis in a systematic manner, inquiring and suggesting scientific explanations. Although they had difficulties in some sections of the I diagram, including Logical Argument, data transformation and variable definition, they were able to establish a link between theory and practice by using their cognitive and meta-cognitive skills.
