GSN core symbols

History

See also: Tim Kelly on GSN (Goal Structuring Notation). The following path can be traced via Wikipedia: Practical arguments > The Toulmin model of argument > Goal structuring notation.

Functionality and ideal use

The GSN is a tool that is used in industry to make arguments, for example, to demonstrate completely and convincingly why a system is considered safe by the operator. The GSN can be used universally (even outside the industrial context) to bring clarity to the logical structure of an argument that traces an assertion back to the underlying evidence. The argument is broken down into individual parts, which are then visualised in their interaction. In this way, the common thread can be worked out, if there is one. This is helpful, for example, if there is no clear written argument, or if you have difficulties in convincingly ‘getting to the point’ of your own assertion for yourself or to others.

Clarity also includes in particular the disclosure of assumptions, justifications, definitions and other contextual information used. For this purpose, the GSN provides blocks for contextual information, which are always spread out to the side of the argumentation threads and labelled with hollow arrow ends. The argumentation threads themselves run vertically (from top to bottom) and can be formulated concisely if used skilfully.

An argumentation tree built with GSN can hardly hide argumentation weaknesses, it is vulnerable. This is precisely the strength of this tool. You can point directly to inconsistencies or implausible assumptions and put your finger directly in the wound. This makes obfuscation and other rhetorical diversionary manoeuvres much more difficult than with the spoken word or written text (for rhetorical tricks, see also DLF Hörsaal - Unfaire Rhetorik erkennen und vermeiden).

It is important not to use the structured argument statically, i.e. to build it up once and then consider it finished, like a painting. Rather, it should be continuously scrutinised for weaknesses through intensive critical questioning from as many different perspectives as possible. In this way, fields of action can be discovered to better achieve the objective, which - if tackled - will in turn strengthen the argument. Additions or reorganisation measures are conceivable, but even a complete rejection is possible if fundamental assumptions turn out to be wrong. A strong argumentation tree needs to be nurtured and should be treated as organic and growing.

A structured argument can be used in discourse as a basis for discussion. An upright, critical and rational attitude is important here: not trying to persuade others by any means, but approaching the truth yourself in encounters with others. This results in increasingly convincing arguments.

Example

An example argument in the GSN for ‘GSN adds value to arguments and thus contributes to the goal of finding the truth’ can be found below in the article Kritik an GSN Kritik