3 ms·

We thought about doing something more formal. The problem is, that argument mapping and other formal methods have quite a learning curve and do make it even ha

by Kialo 8y ago

We thought about doing something more formal. The problem is, that argument mapping and other formal methods have quite a learning curve and do make it even harder for the general public to read / participate.

keeler 8y ago
> The problem is, that argument mapping This strikes me as exactly right. There is no obvious way to formally guarantee that the content of a person's argument actually matches the formal structure that they claim it has.
joe_the_user 8y ago
Honestly, I used Kialo for a bit and found the discussions were so formal that it's discussion lacked all substance and hence all interest (the debate I followed most heavily was the "should an AI be constructed" question). What's interesting about debate on HN, when it is interesting and illuminating, is that each person debating makes their point while changing the framework of discussion, which questions are most important and so-forth. I tend to think that the site could do better just having good moderators setting the terms of debate and letting people put forward their positions from there.
- Kialo 8y ago
  In a multi thesis discussion (https://www.kialo.com/2027 https://www.kialo.com/2027) you can propose different theses. The problem with evolving theses is that they invalidate a huge amount of claims and require many claims to be edited. Threads, where you are not fixed on a particular thesis are of course often more fun, but bring their own set of problems. When a thread goes on for long enough, the different strands are discussing entirely different bits and pieces and newcomers are completely lost, plus the mixing of claims and commentary...HN is truly exceptional with regards to the quality of contributions and I agree, reading comments here is often a wonderful learning experience, one of the very few sites, where I first open the comments, then the linked article. And yes, we are a bit dry. It's a bit like Wikipedia article editing, less like an enthusiastic commenting thread (https://twitter.com/KialoHQ/status/954461988960251904 https://twitter.com/KialoHQ/status/954461988960251904). But given the nature of our topics, we are happy about things being a bit drier. :) Imagine the outcry if we forbade users to create their own discussions. We wouldn't have that tabs vs spaces debate (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17486949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17486949) :)

by Kialo 8y ago

keeler 8y ago

> The problem is, that argument mapping This strikes me as exactly right. There is no obvious way to formally guarantee that the content of a person's argument actually matches the formal structure that they claim it has.

joe_the_user 8y ago

Honestly, I used Kialo for a bit and found the discussions were so formal that it's discussion lacked all substance and hence all interest (the debate I followed most heavily was the "should an AI be constructed" question). What's interesting about debate on HN, when it is interesting and illuminating, is that each person debating makes their point while changing the framework of discussion, which questions are most important and so-forth. I tend to think that the site could do better just having good moderators setting the terms of debate and letting people put forward their positions from there.

Kialo 8y ago
In a multi thesis discussion (https://www.kialo.com/2027 https://www.kialo.com/2027) you can propose different theses. The problem with evolving theses is that they invalidate a huge amount of claims and require many claims to be edited. Threads, where you are not fixed on a particular thesis are of course often more fun, but bring their own set of problems. When a thread goes on for long enough, the different strands are discussing entirely different bits and pieces and newcomers are completely lost, plus the mixing of claims and commentary...HN is truly exceptional with regards to the quality of contributions and I agree, reading comments here is often a wonderful learning experience, one of the very few sites, where I first open the comments, then the linked article. And yes, we are a bit dry. It's a bit like Wikipedia article editing, less like an enthusiastic commenting thread (https://twitter.com/KialoHQ/status/954461988960251904 https://twitter.com/KialoHQ/status/954461988960251904). But given the nature of our topics, we are happy about things being a bit drier. :) Imagine the outcry if we forbade users to create their own discussions. We wouldn't have that tabs vs spaces debate (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17486949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17486949) :)