4 ms·
Interesting, would love to see some argument graphs included in this. Too often debates don't work because nobody is attacking the arguments, but just some stu
by ThouYS 6y ago
Interesting, would love to see some argument graphs included in this. Too often debates don't work because nobody is attacking the arguments, but just some stuff around them, anecdotes, insults, etc.
I would love to see some formalization of attacking an axiom vs attack what follows from that axiom. If you formalize arguments, users could pick if they disagree with the conjecture or what follows from it.
And in the end you could nicely display the entire argument as a graph showing who doesn't agree with what, what gets canceled out by what etc.
- Kerrick 6y agoIsn't this the primary value proposition of Arguman? https://en.arguman.org/everything-in-the-universe-is-either-a-potato-or-not-a-potato https://en.arguman.org/everything-in-the-universe-is-either-...
- imustbeevil 6y agoI wouldn't find value if arguments about the Confederate flag or the morality of eating meat ended in that level of nonsense. We're trying to talk about reality in a way where we can make decisions about it. If only 63% of people can agree that "true != false" then it will be impossible to build any arguments on top of priors.
- Pfhreak 6y agoThat works fine for simple axioms, but how do you square where science and "popular" opinion differ? Eg, science is pretty clear there is a climate crisis caused by human activity, science is pretty clear that lgbtq+ people are valid, etc. But if you put those up for any sort of agree/disagree metrics it's gonna be a shit show. People politicize everything right now. I have no idea how wearing a mask to avoid spreading a pandemic somehow became political, but here are.
- concordDance 6y ago> science is pretty clear that lgbtq+ people are valid Um. That is not a testable phrasing, so I would be immensely surprised if "science" actually said that. Pretty much all LGBTQ stuff is a question of ethics/morals not facts, so science has nothing to say om the matter. It could turn out that being gay is triggered by a pathogen that would still have no bearing on whether gay marriage should be allowed.
- Pfhreak 6y agoIt's shorthand because we're on an internet forum. I'm trying to convey that science generally agrees with lgbtq advocacy - sex is not just male or female, gender is a separate concept than sex and is also not just buckets, gay relationships are common and normal throughout many animal species including our own, being gay or trans isn't a mental illness, etc.
- concordDance 6y agoAh, I see. That said, the political interpretation of the science depends a lot on what questions you ask and what facts you pick. It would be pretty east to portray science as being anti-gay or anti-trans just by asking different questions. E.g. you could ask about the proportion of exclusively homosexual animals or looks at homosexuality incidence rates in different environments. For trans you could do comparisons of prevalence of various personality traits that have differing frequencies by gender. Reality doesn't normally wholely favour a particular political party, there's normally some facts you can spin in for a particular party.