The Generic/Actual Argument Model

In this chapter, we present a formal description of the Generic/Actual Argument Model (GAAM) and develop from this some of its characteristics, practical advantages, and disadvantages. The GAAM is intended as a model to support reasoning and decision making by individuals within a reasoning community. It can be used by individuals without inference support, by individuals with varying degrees of inference support, or as a fully computational system.

Collective Reasoning and Coalescing Reasoning

In this chapter, we consider in some detail the nature of collective reasoning and the existing approaches to supporting the collective reasoning that reasoning communities undertake. In approaching the development of technologies to support the functioning of reasoning communities, it is important to be clear on the nature of the tasks involved in collective reasoning. In Chapter 1, we have outlined the main tasks of collective reasoning as: individual reasoning, reasoning communication, and the coalescing of reasoning. However, it is important to identify the ways in which collective reasoning is indeed cognitive cooperation and to what extent there is a case that it is mutually beneficial cooperation as well as being beneficial in its outcomes.

Communicating Reasoning and Dialectics

In this chapter, we consider the part that the communication of reasoning plays in contributing to the actions of reasoning communities. Communications distinguish group processes from individual processes and will introduce factors that enhance performance as well as factors that inhibit performance.

The Elements of Collective Decision Making

In this chapter, the concept of a reasoning community is introduced. The overarching motivation is to understand reasoning within groups in real world settings so that technologies can be designed to better support the process. Four phases of the process of reasoning by a community are discerned: engagement of participants, individual reasoning, group coalescing, and, ultimately, group decision making. A reasoning community is contrasted with communities of practice and juxtaposed against concepts in related endeavours including computer supported collaborative work, decision science, and artificial intelligence.

Tools and Applications for Reasoning Communities

In this chapter, technological innovations that aim to support reasoning communities are presented. These include decision support systems, group decision support systems, online dispute resolution systems, and tools for the representation of argumentation. Future directions and an analysis of requirements for enhanced tools are made.

Narrative Reasoning

A large proportion of our knowledge and indeed our reasoning is not received or communicated as formal reasoning or informal reasoning but, in fact, as stories. When we focus on this as a reality, it demands that we consider what can be said about reasoning that is conveyed and represented in stories and how it relates to other forms of representing and communicating reasoning. Given that stories are so commonly used, is it possible that they are a form of coalesced reasoning that a community can use, or do they confuse and detract from the main concerns and aspirations of reasoning communities?

Individual Reasoning within a Reasoning Community

In this chapter, the nature of the process that each participant engages in individually in order to contribute to collective reasoning is discussed. The design of technological systems that will best support reasoning in its communal context requires the specification of schemes for representing knowledge and for the inference of new knowledge. Further, it is also necessary to articulate a model for the process that individuals engage in when reasoning in groups. The assertion we make is that the process iteratively includes phases of engagement, individual reasoning, group coalescing, until decision making. Representations, including the classical syllogism, first order logic, default reasoning, deontic reasoning, and argumentation schemes, are surveyed to illustrate their strengths and limitations to represent individual reasoning.

Conclusion

This chapter provides concluding comments on reasoning communities. Types of reasoning communities are identified and described. Technological tools appropriate for each type are discussed. Limitations of reasoning community ideas are described, and future developments are suggested.

Pragmatic Approaches to Supporting Reasoning Communities

Apart from work toward developing ontologies, very little has been done towards developing highly structured reusable reasoning repositories that might support reasoning communities into the future. Pragmatic approaches that have been deployed are surveyed in this chapter. They include approaches for identifying types of problems, techniques for organising text, and approaches for facilitating the sharing of information.

Ontologies and the Semantic Web

We mentioned in Chapter 2 that there are fundamental elements that underlie why reasoners might disagree. One of these fundamental elements is the set of concepts that are related to, or necessary for, communication and reasoning in the domain of discourse. It is important that participants in a reasoning community make explicit the concepts that they are employing and have ways of dealing with the evolution of concepts. In finding a way to apply a concept to a new case, the concept itself is altered in a way that is determined by what the community interprets as the necessary impact from this new case. In this chapter, we illustrate that the “evolved” concept then becomes the one that will be applied to future cases. Not only is it important that concepts and their meaning and interpretation are explicit and up-to-date, but also that there is an agreement on and commitment to this explicit formulation of concepts.