Skip Navigation


Law, Probability and Risk Advance Access originally published online on October 10, 2007
Law, Probability and Risk 2007 6(1-4):23-42; doi:10.1093/lpr/mgm032
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
6/1-4/23    most recent
mgm032v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van Gelder, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

The rationale for RationaleTM

Tim van Gelder{dagger}

Department of Philosophy, University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3052, Australia

{dagger} Email: tgelder{at}unimelb.edu.au

Received on 6 May 2007. Revised on 24 July 2007. Accepted on 24 July 2007.


  Abstract

Complex reasoning and argumentation are central to legal practice. Software-supported argument mapping may be able to help lawyers reason and argue more effectively. This article describes RationaleTM, a generic argument mapping software package, and reviews some evidence that using it can help improve reasoning, i.e. make people smarter. It then explores three different explanations for this potential benefit: usability, complementation and semi-formality. First, argument mapping software can be more usable for reasoning activities than traditional methods because it can inherit the wisdom gained through decades of research and experience into usability, can exploit a wider range of representational resources, and is designed specifically to support reasoning activities. Second, such software works by complementing the strengths and weaknesses of our natural or inbuilt cognitive capacities. Third, it helps shift reasoning and argumentation into a semi-formal mode, a kind of ‘sweet spot’ between the laxness of everyday reasoning and the straightjacket of formal logic.

Keywords: reasoning; legal reasoning; argument mapping; RationaleTM; intelligence augmentation; usability; complementation; semi-formality

Presented at the workshop on ‘Graphic and visual representations of evidence and inference in legal settings’ at Cardozo School of Law, New York City, 28–29 January 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.