4 ms·
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 i
by 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 agoI 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 agoIn 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.