Cognitive Map Model in Argumentation Theory
نویسندگان
چکیده
A cognitive map is a graphical representation of mental beliefs of an underlined entity by an expert following a set of discursive representations from his own cognitive representation on a particular subject to help him to think about the presented reality. In This paper, first we briefly present the argumentation theory and the cognitive map model with its applications for decision problems. In the second part, we show how the cognitive map can be used as a tool of argumentation in decision aiding process.
منابع مشابه
Argumentation and Persuasion in the Cognitive Coherence Theory: Preliminary Report
This paper presents a coherentist approach to argumentation that extends previous proposals on cognitive coherence based agent communication pragmatics (inspired from social psychology) and propose (1) an alternative view on argumentation that is (2) part of a more general model of communication. In this approach, the cognitive aspects associated to both the production, the evaluation and the i...
متن کاملArgumentation and Persuasion in the Cognitive Coherence Theory
This paper presents a coherentist approach to argumentation that extends previous proposals on cognitive coherence based agent communication pragmatics (inspired from social psychology) and propose (1) an alternative view on argumentation that is (2) part of a more general model of communication. In this approach, the cognitive aspects associated to both the production, the evaluation and the i...
متن کاملOn the construction of joint plans through argumentation schemes
The term Multi-Agent Planning (MAP) refers to any kind of planning in domains in which several independent entities (agents) plan and act together. Recently, a number of attempts have used argumentation to handle the issue of selecting the best actions for an agent to do in a given situation [4]. Particularly, there have been proposals to apply argumentation theory to planning, for dealing with...
متن کاملModelling Argumentation and Belief Revision in Agent Interactions
We describe a model for resolution of belief conflicts by argumentation in agent interactions, based on aspects of dialogic logic, speech act theory and belief systems research. This is part of a long term project on the relations between argumentation and cognitive change in collaborative problemsolving interactions. A set of communicative acts for argumentative interaction is defined, based o...
متن کاملA Collaborative Model of Argumentation in Dyadic Problem-Solving Interactions
Within a cognitive approach to argumentation, our research deals with the argumentative processes of knowledge co-construction in dialogue (Baker, 1999). From this point of view we have been designing experimental situations favouring argumentation in dyadic problem-solving (Quignard & Baker, 1998; Baker, Quignard, Lund & van Amelsvoort, this volume) over several years, in order to understand t...
متن کامل