3 ms·

I'm not quite sure what the authors of this site mean by "reason" and "rational." Its design promotes the arguments that are most popular, not the ones with the

I'm not quite sure what the authors of this site mean by "reason" and "rational." Its design promotes the arguments that are most popular, not the ones with the most intrinsic validity or soundness. Furthermore, it's by no means obvious that rationality alone is sufficient to resolve moral and ethical questions; other virtues may also be required.

Kialo 8y ago
Well, at least we tell people to vote the claims "impacts" not likability. We haven't yet researched how well this works, but anecdotal evidence suggests that it does have some impact. The heart, is just a thanks to the original author and doesn't impact the sorting. We are going to do something drastic to the default impact shown, because we agree that the average is not really an interesting measure. 1-2 months. I hope we are not overselling ourselves. We are no panacea, what we do, is facilitate and capture the reasoning of all viewpoints. This won't automatically lead to consensus. But at the very least you can now truly understand where others are coming from and write your opposing claims to whatever they consider being their strongest points.
- jasonhansel 8y ago
  I agree that further research on this topic would be excellent! But we should keep in mind that what's really important is not to reach consensus, but to ascertain the truth. More generally, though, I would be interested to hear how you would define "reason" and "rationality." These are difficult questions, and I'm interested to hear more about your approach.
  - Kialo 8y ago
    In a democracy, consensus on truths actually matters a lot. Not speaking for the team, but, I would probably consider something to be argued rationally, that is logical within a cultural setting and frame of mind. Very often, this depends on the epistemological system a person is using. Take believers vs non-believers. Both can be rational within their framework, but many will consider other people's framework as not rational. We think that claims should always be logical and pertaining to the parent claim above them, in YOUR belief system, otherwise it becomes incoherent and unreadable for others.
bootlooped 8y ago
> Its design promotes the arguments that are most popular, not the ones with the most intrinsic validity or soundness. How would that be remedied? I think if a large enough group of users ranked arguments on intrinsic validity or soundness, the effect would be indistinguishable from popularity. Imagine the results of asking everybody in the US to rank music on musical skill and artistic achievement. You would get the Top 40.
- jasonhansel 8y ago
  I don't mean that arguments should be ranked on perceived soundness, as determined through democratic voting, but on actual soundness. It may be impossible to remedy this problem through any purely democratic system, but it remains a problem nevertheless.
  - Kialo 8y ago
    I don't think this can be remedied via democratic voting. We are thinking of allowing debate admins to show some default perspectives, e.g. atheist vs Christian, as these are more interesting than the avg.

Kialo 8y ago

Well, at least we tell people to vote the claims "impacts" not likability. We haven't yet researched how well this works, but anecdotal evidence suggests that it does have some impact. The heart, is just a thanks to the original author and doesn't impact the sorting. We are going to do something drastic to the default impact shown, because we agree that the average is not really an interesting measure. 1-2 months. I hope we are not overselling ourselves. We are no panacea, what we do, is facilitate and capture the reasoning of all viewpoints. This won't automatically lead to consensus. But at the very least you can now truly understand where others are coming from and write your opposing claims to whatever they consider being their strongest points.

jasonhansel 8y ago
I agree that further research on this topic would be excellent! But we should keep in mind that what's really important is not to reach consensus, but to ascertain the truth. More generally, though, I would be interested to hear how you would define "reason" and "rationality." These are difficult questions, and I'm interested to hear more about your approach.
- Kialo 8y ago
  In a democracy, consensus on truths actually matters a lot. Not speaking for the team, but, I would probably consider something to be argued rationally, that is logical within a cultural setting and frame of mind. Very often, this depends on the epistemological system a person is using. Take believers vs non-believers. Both can be rational within their framework, but many will consider other people's framework as not rational. We think that claims should always be logical and pertaining to the parent claim above them, in YOUR belief system, otherwise it becomes incoherent and unreadable for others.

bootlooped 8y ago

> Its design promotes the arguments that are most popular, not the ones with the most intrinsic validity or soundness. How would that be remedied? I think if a large enough group of users ranked arguments on intrinsic validity or soundness, the effect would be indistinguishable from popularity. Imagine the results of asking everybody in the US to rank music on musical skill and artistic achievement. You would get the Top 40.

jasonhansel 8y ago
I don't mean that arguments should be ranked on perceived soundness, as determined through democratic voting, but on actual soundness. It may be impossible to remedy this problem through any purely democratic system, but it remains a problem nevertheless.
- Kialo 8y ago
  I don't think this can be remedied via democratic voting. We are thinking of allowing debate admins to show some default perspectives, e.g. atheist vs Christian, as these are more interesting than the avg.