+ finally, thank you all to those who’ve aMapped so far – carry on arguing!

We’ll soon be selecting the top 10 aMaps made so far and you can Tweet your submissions to us or pop them into the comments.

The response to aMap so far has exceeded all expectations, wiith over 500 aMaps being made in the last 24 hours. Thanks to everyone who has created, joined or shared an argument. We’re still developing aMap and any comments you have on how we could improve it are appreciated – pop them in the comments.

“Logic is the anatomy of thought” – John Locke

Formal logic holds that a good argument is a “sound” argument – i.e. an argument in which the truth of the propositions logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

By using formal logic, it is possible to infer (via deduction or induction) whether an argument is sound or not by testing whether the conclusion is made true by the supporting propositions.
A classic example of an argument based on formal logic is:
Proposition 1: “All humans are mortal”
Proposition 2:  “David Beckham is human”
Conclusion: “David Beckham is mortal”

In every day life most people use “informal logic” in their reasoning and arguments.  This is a much less strict version of logic that doesn’t accord to the strict rules of inference that formal logic – e.g. mathematical logic -  does.

Informal logic is not so much about “truth” but more to do with “persuasion”.  And as the at the core of persuasion is the idea of making it easy for your audience to “understand” you, it is of the utmost importance to ensure arguments are “well structured” and each part of the argument can easily be picked apart.

A classic format of “Informal logic” is based around a 4-tiered structure:
- Your position (I think . . .) – what you think overall
- Propositions (Because . . .) – reasons that support your position
- Arguments (As . . .) – supporting arguments that back up each of your propositions (this is also referred to as a minor “proposition”)
- Evidence (Supported by . . .) – supporting evidence to back up your arguments

So using this structure, an argument may look like this:
- Position: Liverpool are better than Everton
- Proposition: Because Liverpool are more successful on the pitch
- Argument: As Liverpool have won more cups and are higher in the league
- Evidence: Which is supported by the fact that Liverpool have won the Champions League 5 times, Everton have never won it.

Acknowledging this tiered informal logic structuring means it’s easy to formulate an argument – and equally easy for the audience to pick it apart, and judge for themselves whether they believe in the truth of each of the premises of the overall argument – i.e. the propositions, supporting arguments and supporting evidence.

Additional to the informal logic structure, influential arguers should also takes into account two further components of persuasive argument proposed in Aristotelian rhetoric:
- pathos (the convictions of the audience to whom an argument is addressed)
- ethos (the character of the arguer)

(N.B. Aristotle’s third component was logos – the logic of the argument)

Classic uses of pathos in persuasive arguments include the use of “metaphor” or “story telling”.  By anchoring your propositions in your audience’s world makes them much easier to engage with.

The core to ensuring an arguer establishes ethos, is to show “moral competence” and high levels of knowledge.  This can be done implicitly by the cogency and stature of your argument, or explicitly by ensuring your arguments are well supported by weighty evidence.

So to recap, borrowing off and updating Aristotle’s ancient (and ever prescient) wisdom, there are 3 rules to follow if you’re going to win arguments and influence people:
- Logos – structure your argument well, and make sure it holds true (even if it’s not true make your position at least seem true)
- Pathos – back up your position with propositions which use stories and language that chime with your audience.
- Ethos – make sure your arguments are well founded, and backed up with some juicy (believable) evidence. ]]> http://www.amap.org.uk/2009/01/how-to-win-arguments-and-influence-people/feed/ 6 http://www.amap.org.uk/2009/01/we-like-feedback/ http://www.amap.org.uk/2009/01/we-like-feedback/#comments Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:26:17 +0000 delib http://www.amap.org.uk/?p=117 As aMap’s in its infancy, we’re always keen to get as much feedback on both the interactive widget and printed maps as possible – so if you’ve got any ideas for improvements, then do drop us a note and we can take them into account for the next iteration.

We’re also keen for people to spot any bugs (of which there have been many so far!)

Drop me a note @ Chris “AT” delib.co.uk

Anyway, it would be great if anyone from the event could provide feedback that would be great.

Cheers!  The launch process goes on . . .

Over the next week, we’re also starting to send out launch letters to friends / family / strangers to announce the arrival of aMap – which are being handled by the dream team of Helen and Jake.

On the not so good news side, there are still a fair few bugs with the aMap widget at the mo, which Ben and Dan will hopefully be able to fix by this evening’s launch.  Fingers crossed . . .

I’ve happily (or unhappily) blocked out my whole weekend to dedicate to copy checking + bug fixing + launch planning, as we’re due to launch on Monday.

Amongst the more menial tasks, I’ve also been writing up my thoughts on “argument theory” and how the structures of “informal logic” work – which has been a nice mental change from the drudgery of xl and wordpress . . .