Infrastructure for Navigating Interdisciplinary Debates: Critical Decisions for Representing Argumentation

  • Robert E. Horn
Part of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work book series (CSCW)


There are differences between those argumentation mapping. schemes that focus on supporting real-time disputes and those which support carefully crafted, heavily edited representations of the intellectual history of some of humanity’s most significant and enduring debates.


Genetically Modify Food Intellectual History Argumentation Analysis Great Debate Monarch Butterfly 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Hartley J. and Trueman M., (1983) The effects of headings in text on recall, search and retrieval. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 33, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Horn R. E. (1989) Mapping Hypertext. Lexington, MA: The Lexington Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Horn R. E. (1992a) How high can it fly? Examining the evidence on information mapping’s method of high performance communication. Lexington, MA: The Lexington Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Horn R. E. (1992b) Clarifying two controversies about information mapping’s method, Educational and Training Technology International, 229, 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Horn R. E., (1993, February). Structured writing at twenty five. Performance and Instruction, 11-17.Google Scholar
  6. Horn, R. E., (1995). Structured writing as a paradigm. In A. Romiszowski & C. Dills (Eds.), Instructional development. State of the art. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Horn, R. E. (1998a). Mapping great debates. Can computers think? 7 maps and Handbook. Bainbridge Island, WA: MacroVU. Available from http://www.macrovu.comGoogle Scholar
  8. Horn, R. E. (1998b). Visual language: global communication for the 21st Century. Bainbridge Island, WA: MacroVU.Google Scholar
  9. Horn, R. E. (1998c). Using argumentation analysis to examine history and status of a major debate in artificial intelligence and philosophy. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & Willard, C. A. (Eds.) Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the international society for study of argumentation, 375-381.Google Scholar
  10. Horn R. E. (2000, Fall). Teaching philosophy with argumentation maps. American philosophical association newsletter on teaching philosophy, 153-159Google Scholar
  11. Reid F., & Wright P. (1973). Written Information: Some alternatives to prose for expressing the outcomes of complex contingencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(2),160–166Google Scholar
  12. Thomas, L. (1981, July). Debating the unknowable. Atlantic Monthly, 49-50.Google Scholar
  13. Toulmin S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Toulmin S., Rieke R., & Janik A. (1979). An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Turing A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 39, 434–460.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Wagner, E. (1998). Personal communication. Available from http://www.macrovu.comGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert E. Horn
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Saybrook Graduate SchoolUSA

Personalised recommendations