From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu Apr 10 2003 - 07:25:52 MDT
Anders Sandberg wrote,
> I would love to build a graphical computer-aided system for building
> rational arguments, even if they were lacking in the depth or
> complexity
> we see in ordinary discussions. It would be great to use as a skeleton
> for building scientific theories or thinking about what to research
> right now.
I have similar ambitions. I would love to build a BBS systems that is
structured for logical and rational debate. It would classify postings so
people could filter them correctly by subject. Each posting would have a
purpose that is clearly defined: make a point, refute another point,
provide evidence for a point, point out a logical fallacy, show support,
show disdain, vote on an idea, add data, etc. The linking structure would
combine these items in an rational format, and not just by order of posting.
I also would like to see position definitions and terms definitions
maintained separately and linked into the discussions. People would modify
their positions in a single location which would be a complete and compact
summary. Others wouldn't need to read through an entire argument to try to
reconstruct everybody's position from multiple postings. Arguments and
counterarguments would be linked together for easy perusal. There also
should be full indexing and meta-linking between posts, data-mining for
trends and complex data relationships, and databases for extracting and
maintaining real information so that knowledge in the system grows, rather
than just growing the volume of unprocess ramblings.
E-mail lists are so difficult to use for rational debate. There must be a
way to provide more structure and support to the process without limiting or
controlling people's opinions.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 10 2003 - 07:35:50 MDT