Difference between revisions of "Structured debate"

From InstaGov
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(saving for now)
(reworked significantly; lots of stuff moved to debate mapper)
 
(12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
[[category:concepts]]
+
[[category:tools]]
 +
'''Author's note''': Despite multiple refinements, this is still rather wordy. Feel free to ask me questions on [https://toot.cat/@woozle Mastodon], and that will help me improve this explanation.
 
==About==
 
==About==
−
Political arguments often become very complex, requiring accurate conclusions from a variety of fields. Most – perhaps all – people do not have sufficient time to acquire all the necessary knowledge, much less the memory capacity to be aware of all the given facts at one time.
+
[[Structured debate]] is a way of cutting through disinformation and misunderstanding around complex topics. The key observation behind it is that policy decisions often depend on chains of logic that have gotten tangled or lost, and people forget or don't notice that key premises are basically wrong.
  
−
Worse, political interests will often imply or state falsehoods regarding these facts, interpret ambiguity in their favor, or claim ambiguity where none exists – leading even those with the best of intentions into conclusions that are false and actions that are likely to be destructive or wasteful.
+
The mapper keeps track of the logical structure and shows what happens to the conclusion when a premise is found to be in error.
 +
===Need===
 +
A lot of political debate involves people reaching conclusions that involve fairly complex chains of reasoning -- they believe A because of B and C, and C because of D and E... and a lot of propaganda revolves around planting misinformation at those lower levels -- E is actually false, though everyone believes it, but the debate mostly revolves around A because nobody thinks to question C because that would require questioning D and E ...so people reach the wrong conclusion. Some of them may intuitively feel it's wrong, but they can't figure out why. There's a premise they're not checking.
  
−
Furthermore, in a typical discussion, many points may be left unanswered. A debater who does not scrupulously itemize every point made by her/his opponent and answer them one by one may even leave onlookers with the ''impression'' that every opposing point has been answered when in fact s/he cannot satisfactorily answer them.
+
So being "reasonable" ends up meaning you have to go along with a conclusion that's both factually and intuitively wrong.
  
−
It is therefore necessary to have some kind of system for keeping track of the structure of an argument in order to be certain that all points raised are answered. Making this structure publicly editable allows those with specialized knowledge to do fact-checking in their area of knowledge, and to make sure that no incorrect assertions are allowed to stand unanswered.
+
Structured debate, and the [[debate mapper]] software, are designed to keep track of these complex relationships in order to reduce such errors from "inevitable" to "rare".
 +
==Pages==
 +
* [[/rules]]: structural design / "business" logic
 +
==Refinements==
 +
===Ecosystem Features===
 +
* '''Linking''': In order to negate the need to replay existing debates within new contexts, any given point in a debate can be made dynamically dependent on the outcome of another debate.
 +
* '''Categorization''': any given point within a debate may touch on one or more topics of general interest, and should be findable by anyone exploring that topic. ''A system for managing [[icms:Crowdsourced taxonomy|crowdsourced topic-tagging]] is under development.''
 +
* '''Relationships''': It may be useful to be able to quantify the nature of a link's relationship with more granularity. One possible relationship:
 +
** A is a generalization of B (= B is a special case of A)
 +
** A may be inferred from B (= B is a premise upon which A is based)
 +
** Types of support-point (this will definitely be needed):
 +
*** A is ''necessary'' in order for B to be true
 +
*** A is ''sufficient'' in order for B to be true
 +
===Usability Features===
 +
Additional features not essential to the basic concept but which makes it more usable:
 +
* '''Text search''': search within a branch for specific text or patterns
 +
* '''Notifications''': users should be able to set a preference indicating that they do (or do not) want to be notified (by any of various methods) when any of the following occurs for any given debate point:
 +
** the point's status changes (from true to false or vice-versa)
 +
** anyone edits the point's text
 +
** the status of any subpoint changes
 +
** anyone adds a new support or counter point
  
−
This is the purpose of the [[debate mapper]] module of [[InstaGov]], and the purpose of the proposed [[/rules]].
+
There may be other usability features we will want to include.
 +
 
 +
==Flaws==
 +
* [[/counterpoint spam]]: Dishonest participants may repeatedly raise spurious objections solely for the purpose of keeping the correct conclusion in a state of presumed falsehood.
 +
==Related==
 +
* InstaGov's [[debate mapper]] module is a software implementation of the [[structured debate]] methodology.
 +
* [[Structured debate]] is a methodology for conducting [[rational debate]].
 +
* {{issuepedia}} has an article about SD. Some of the material there should probably be moved or copied over here.
 +
==Notes==
 +
* Note Sakari's comments <s>[https://plus.google.com/u/0/102282887764745350285/posts/d9jVWJH5u1z here]</s>.

Latest revision as of 02:08, 12 November 2019

Author's note: Despite multiple refinements, this is still rather wordy. Feel free to ask me questions on Mastodon, and that will help me improve this explanation.

About

Structured debate is a way of cutting through disinformation and misunderstanding around complex topics. The key observation behind it is that policy decisions often depend on chains of logic that have gotten tangled or lost, and people forget or don't notice that key premises are basically wrong.

The mapper keeps track of the logical structure and shows what happens to the conclusion when a premise is found to be in error.

Need

A lot of political debate involves people reaching conclusions that involve fairly complex chains of reasoning -- they believe A because of B and C, and C because of D and E... and a lot of propaganda revolves around planting misinformation at those lower levels -- E is actually false, though everyone believes it, but the debate mostly revolves around A because nobody thinks to question C because that would require questioning D and E ...so people reach the wrong conclusion. Some of them may intuitively feel it's wrong, but they can't figure out why. There's a premise they're not checking.

So being "reasonable" ends up meaning you have to go along with a conclusion that's both factually and intuitively wrong.

Structured debate, and the debate mapper software, are designed to keep track of these complex relationships in order to reduce such errors from "inevitable" to "rare".

Pages

  • /rules: structural design / "business" logic

Refinements

Ecosystem Features

  • Linking: In order to negate the need to replay existing debates within new contexts, any given point in a debate can be made dynamically dependent on the outcome of another debate.
  • Categorization: any given point within a debate may touch on one or more topics of general interest, and should be findable by anyone exploring that topic. A system for managing crowdsourced topic-tagging is under development.
  • Relationships: It may be useful to be able to quantify the nature of a link's relationship with more granularity. One possible relationship:
    • A is a generalization of B (= B is a special case of A)
    • A may be inferred from B (= B is a premise upon which A is based)
    • Types of support-point (this will definitely be needed):
      • A is necessary in order for B to be true
      • A is sufficient in order for B to be true

Usability Features

Additional features not essential to the basic concept but which makes it more usable:

  • Text search: search within a branch for specific text or patterns
  • Notifications: users should be able to set a preference indicating that they do (or do not) want to be notified (by any of various methods) when any of the following occurs for any given debate point:
    • the point's status changes (from true to false or vice-versa)
    • anyone edits the point's text
    • the status of any subpoint changes
    • anyone adds a new support or counter point

There may be other usability features we will want to include.

Flaws

  • /counterpoint spam: Dishonest participants may repeatedly raise spurious objections solely for the purpose of keeping the correct conclusion in a state of presumed falsehood.

Related

Notes

  • Note Sakari's comments here.
Retrieved from "https://instagov.com/wiki/index.php?title=Structured_debate&oldid=12468"