Warning:
JavaScript is turned OFF. None of the links on this page will work until it is reactivated.
If you need help turning JavaScript On, click here.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: problems of large-scale deliberation mapping, a user would enter a 3-D room through a door. The central claim of an argumentation is just in front of him, the main argument visible, the rest is disappearing into the background. He can go around and would see the general structure of the argumentation (e.g. the geo-engineering arg: There is a main argument, but it turns out that large scale experimentation is a problem. Also, all the objections have to be specified with regard to the list of possible technologies. At each point it should be possible to click on an element of the most general 3-D structure to transform the room into a 2-D map, with the element clicked on highlighted in the middle. could be useful also for risk of dumbing down complex issues into simple boxes. How to distinguish relevant and credible sources from others, it should be possible-- depending on different purposes--to switch between different representations of a maps content e.g. problem of chronology. Is important when telling the story of a debate, to distinguish and to connect various levels of generality: from a rough overview that shows what all this is about to a more detailed argumentation, and to more specific debates, data, models, etc. behind it. leads to it should be possible-- depending on different purposes--to switch between different representations of a maps content, to distinguish and to connect various levels of generality: from a rough overview that shows what all this is about to a more detailed argumentation, and to more specific debates, data, models, etc. behind it. reacts to the problem how detailed should a map be? Scientific progress is only possible if particular results and concise argumentations for these results get summarized and structured in "bigger pictures." This process can be visualized as an arrangement of "layers" with particular studies at the bottom and more general--and reduced--representations of their results on top of them. Since any scientific study builds on previous research, it contributes always to both the generation of new know- ledge and the reduction of previous knowledge. Thus, the whole picture of scientific progress can be visualized as an infinite--and almost infinite complex--structure of layers. Based on this the question of how to represent scientific knowledge becomes a daunting task. (This problem gets even more challenging when we consider the reductions that happen when scientific knowledge enters the political or public arena, or interdisciplinary collaboration *problem of translation.), a user would enter a 3-D room through a door. The central claim of an argumentation is just in front of him, the main argument visible, the rest is disappearing into the background. He can go around and would see the general structure of the argumentation (e.g. the geo-engineering arg: There is a main argument, but it turns out that large scale experimentation is a problem. Also, all the objections have to be specified with regard to the list of possible technologies. At each point it should be possible to click on an element of the most general 3-D structure to transform the room into a 2-D map, with the element clicked on highlighted in the middle. that would be a roadmap to the map, problem of chronology. Is important when telling the story of a debate can be realized by maybe by coloring, using the recording function or presentation builder, problem of chronology. Is important when telling the story of a debate presupposes each contribution can get a date, the problem of framing. There might be different 3-D structures for the same 2-D map. framing the way we introduce new points into a debate and connect them to existing arguments depends on framing. Can this process be justified or is it simply arbitrary and subjective? (This is, first of all, a problem of reconstructing debates. If a debate itself is performed by LAM any new contributor will naturally react to what is already presented. However, this way the problem simply returns in another form: If the development of a delibaration over time is driven by this kind of dialogical interactions, can this develop- ment be characterized as a rational process or not?), a user would enter a 3-D room through a door. The central claim of an argumentation is just in front of him, the main argument visible, the rest is disappearing into the background. He can go around and would see the general structure of the argumentation (e.g. the geo-engineering arg: There is a main argument, but it turns out that large scale experimentation is a problem. Also, all the objections have to be specified with regard to the list of possible technologies. At each point it should be possible to click on an element of the most general 3-D structure to transform the room into a 2-D map, with the element clicked on highlighted in the middle. could be useful also for to distinguish and to connect various levels of generality: from a rough overview that shows what all this is about to a more detailed argumentation, and to more specific debates, data, models, etc. behind it., a user would enter a 3-D room through a door. The central claim of an argumentation is just in front of him, the main argument visible, the rest is disappearing into the background. He can go around and would see the general structure of the argumentation (e.g. the geo-engineering arg: There is a main argument, but it turns out that large scale experimentation is a problem. Also, all the objections have to be specified with regard to the list of possible technologies. At each point it should be possible to click on an element of the most general 3-D structure to transform the room into a 2-D map, with the element clicked on highlighted in the middle. could be useful also for the problem of framing. There might be different 3-D structures for the same 2-D map., How to introduce a new user/visitor to an existing and ongoing debate? talk with Andrew Jan 15, 09 a user would enter a 3-D room through a door. The central claim of an argumentation is just in front of him, the main argument visible, the rest is disappearing into the background. He can go around and would see the general structure of the argumentation (e.g. the geo-engineering arg: There is a main argument, but it turns out that large scale experimentation is a problem. Also, all the objections have to be specified with regard to the list of possible technologies. At each point it should be possible to click on an element of the most general 3-D structure to transform the room into a 2-D map, with the element clicked on highlighted in the middle., there should be a grid laid out over maps which devides it into sectors, as in topographic maps. Then an index could be used to locate things an answer How to search in a complex map for certain issues and discussions? This is a semantic problem: what are the terms used in a certain debate?