Maps | General information (large file!) | Details and features | Specifications | Issue areas | Press release
Methodology | Background paper | The cartographic metaphor | Criteria | How the maps work (large file!)
For Instructors and Students | Importance of Turing debate | For instructors | For students | Protagonist index | FAQS
Commentary and Reviews | Commentary and reviews | Errata and corrections
Action Items | Buy the set of maps | How you can participate in this debate
Examples | View the maps. | Map 1 | Map 2 | Map 3 | Map 4 | Map 5 | Map 6 | Map 7 | (large files!)
MacroVU home page | Send us a message | Project Director's Home Page

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Author Called "Christopher Columbus" of Argumentation Mapping

Australia-March 16, 2001- Argumentation mapping--a new diagrammatic form of presentation of philosophical and policy debates--has its "Christopher Columbus" says Paul Monk in a recent article entitled "Mapping the Future of Argument" that appeared in the Financial Times (Australia). Traditional argumentation, Monk explains, leads us to "engage in endless, often circular verbal disputes, or rely on the maze-like structure of forbidding volumes of prose." In contrast, Robert Horn's innovative seven-chart map on the debate "Can Computers Think?" lays out over 800 individual claims, rebuttals, and counterrebuttals so clearly that "any intelligent non-specialist can see and understand very quickly why there is a debate, what the experts disagree on and where the cutting edge of thinking is."

Monk, a senior fellow of the Australian Thinking Skills Institute who also teaches at the Australian Defense University, envisions a future where argumentation mapping could "much more rapidly than reading and writing become a mass technique for thinking clearly and presenting arguments. It might come to be used at every level of the curriculum in schools and universities, as well as for intelligence analysis and strategic planning in both the public and the private sector."

Horn's work has already been applied to public policy debates such as the National Missile Defense Project, and his "Mapping Great Debates" series, which began with "Can Computers Think?" and now includes a set of maps on the interdisciplinary study of consciousness. Monk writes, "Columbus's voyages were undertaken against the background of Western European frustration with Ottoman control of the spice trade . . . . Horn's work was undertaken against a background of frustration with the sheer complexity of serious debates in the late 20th century."

Monk cites Horn's work as a "further evolutionary leap" not only for the field of argumentation, but also for the "collective, technological Big Brain" of humanity. Monk writes that "Using it, like any other tool, is a challenge to acquire skill and an opportunity to perform in ways that were simply not possible before. . ." Just as humans invented the first written languages to navigate arguments, the rapidly changing technology and complex international policy issues of the 21st century necessitate new kinds of language.

"Maps in the usual sense were created to help us get around the physical landscape and may pre-date writing. It took a huge amount of work and the development of specialised tools, however, before maps became accurate and the world itself a 'mapped' place. . .," writes Monk. Monk foresees argumentation maps becoming as ubiquitous and clearly indispensable in the near future as street maps are today. Just as we would not read a detailed prose description of each street in a city to find an address, we will not turn to stacks of books to understand an argument. Instead, Monk argues, following the lead of explorers such as Robert Horn, we will use a map.

"Can Computers Think?" is a set of seven maps measuring 3 x 4 feet each, with text and graphics showing both the topical and chronological organization of the debate. Horn's maps display arguments beginning with Alan Turing's 1950 claim that computers would be capable of thinking and move through over 800 subsequent claims and rebuttals. Each map plots an average of 100 major claims, representing the nearly 400 cognitive scientists, philosophers, AI researchers, and mathematicians who have weighed into the argument in a significant way.

Visually, the maps are groundbreaking as well. Several hundred icons and illustrations and about 60 photographs help the reader navigate, providing easy landmarks and crystal-clear visual representation of the arguments. A small handbook contains a complete bibliography, an author index, an introduction to the new mapmaking methodology, an in-depth exploration of the cartographic metaphor, a discussion of eleven major criteria for argument selection, and frequently asked questions.

Editor's Note: "Mapping Great Debates: Can Computers Think?" is the first in the series of the Mapping Great Debates project started in 1995 by MacroVU®, Inc., a company founded to usher in the post-information-explosion age with innovative visual language tools. The set of seven maps retails for $99 and is available from the publisher by calling (206)780-9612 or by faxing (206)842-0296, or ordering online at <http://www.macrovu.com/CCTOrderForm.html>

The full text of Paul Monk's article "The Future of Argumentation Mapping" may be viewed at <http://afr.com/lifestyle/2001/03/16/FFXGPUQBBKC.html>