Abstract
A macroscope is proposed and tested here for the discovery of the unique argumentative footprint that characterizes how a collective (e.g., group, online community) manages differences and pursues disagreement through argument in a polylogue. The macroscope addresses broader analytic problems posed by various conceptualizations of large-scale argument, such as fields, spheres, communities, and institutions. The design incorporates a two-tier methodology for detecting argument patterns of the arguments performed in arguing by an interactive collective that produces views, or topographies, of the ways that issues are generated in the making and defending of standpoints. The design premises for the macroscope build on insights about argument patterns from pragma-dialectical theory by incorporating research and theory on disagreement management and the Argumentum Model of Topics. The design reconceptualizes prototypical and stereotypical argument patterns for characterizing large-scale argumentation. A prototype of the macroscope is tested on data drawn from six threads about oil-drilling and fracking from the subreddit Changemyview. The implementation suggests the efficacy of the macroscope’s design and potential for identifying what communities make controversial and how the disagreement space in a polylogue is managed through stereotypical argument patterns in terms of claims/premises, inferential relations, and presentational devices.
Highlights
It has long been recognized that argumentation is a property of human groups, organizations, and communities
Reasoning about future actions or future consequences of actions is at the core of the attested causal argument schemes, where standpoints are for the 80% of cases interpretative propositions of the predictive type presented as inter-subjective through the use of concurrence markers
The macroscope addresses the broader analytic problem posed by argumentation theories about the argumentation of groups, organizations, and communities by contributing a theoretically motivated procedure to trace back the specimena of argumentative realities presupposed by various conceptualizations of large-scale argument such as fields, spheres, communities, and institutions
Summary
It has long been recognized that argumentation is a property of human groups, organizations, and communities Key to this recognition are the particular and characteristic means collectives develop for managing differences and pursuing disagreements in polylogues (i.e., discussions, deliberations, and controversies involving multiple players, pursuing many positions across many places).. Despite the important conceptualizations within each theory about key distinguishing features (e.g., field dependent and independent criteria), the scale at which groups, organizations, communities, and societies behave is often either too big, slow, fast, or complex. This remains a profound challenge for adequately realizing the empirical potential of these rich conceptualizations for describing and evaluating the argumentative footprint of collectives and their polylogues
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
