[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Connecting the Dots...

Eric Armstrong <eric.armstrong@sun.com> writes:    (01)

 % >  If we carpet bomb Bagdad, hundreds of thousands will die.    (02)

 % At no time in history has any government acted with more concern
 % for the prevention of collateral damage, loss of life, or human
 % suffering. That is simply unfair.     (03)

 You assert that:    (04)

  "  no time in history has any government acted with more concern ..."    (05)

  I do not believe it.    (06)

  In fact, I think there are many things that could be 
  done that would show more concern.    (07)

  Long term changes to how we process things would help us a lot.    (08)

  IE, More building of equitable process,
  more distrubtion of resources,
  less consuption of non-replacable resources
  More education
  Better health care
  Better metrics for tracking progress    (09)

  Less bluster     (010)

 % >  Ok... Here we are... We have a pile of arguments and counter arguments.
 % >  Now what?    (011)

 % >  Where is the pattern/methodology/tool/process that illuminates the
 % >  conversation and helps us get to a deeper understanding of the issues?    (012)

 % The conversation has helped me discern what *structuring* tools are
 % necessary to carry on the conversation. Those tools are a necessary
 % ingredient, though not sufficient. Given our email dialog, we don't
 % even have that necessary ingredient. But assume for the moment we
 % did, and we had a nested outline of argument and counter-argument
 % that was malleable enough to be refactored into a decent digest, of
 % the form Benja presented.    (013)

We can transform this into any shape you want.    (014)

What are the possible shapes?    (015)

- outline
- nodal diagram
- wiki    (016)

 % It occurs to me that the next step would SlashDot style ratings,
 % possibly of the form  "Agree", "Don't agree", "absoluteTruth!",
 % "brainDead!", and "maybe".    (017)

Ok. At the Computers And Philosophy conference last summer,
(the next one is at OSU in the summer)
There were some argument diagrams on the wall for classical
computer questions like "can computers think"    (018)

We could draw out the diagram for this discussion.    (019)

 % Then "anonymous coward" and his or her siblings (to use the
 % funny SlashDot appellation) or registered users, could respond
 % to different parts of the arguments. In effect, they would say,
 % that's a good thought, that wasn't helpful, and so on.    (020)

What would we do with the results of the voting?    (021)

 % The potential results would then be:
 %   1) Filter for the "strong" arguments, as at SlashDot
 %   2) Reward well expressed, constructive additions
 %   3) Hopefully, provide disincentive for useless and/or
 %      rhetorical contributions.    (022)

Ok... But what kind of calculation do you want to do... Color the nodes?
Not show nodes?
Show a conclusion and color it pass or fail based on some
calculation?    (023)

 % It seems to me that the ability to rate individual arguments,
 % rather than simply conclusions (by voting on them), would be
 % a powerful tool that would help change the way we reach
 % conclusions. That's more of a feeling than anything I can
 % put my finger on, just yet. But it sure would be interesting
 % to know how many people liked or disliked such and such a 
 % point....    (024)

We already know what the conclusion that we have. What we don't
have is a clear understanding of how we got there.    (025)

IE, we often do things, without being able to articulate why we do them.    (026)

Or we believe things without being able to articulate why we beieve them.    (027)

I had dinner last night with a collegue, who suggested the 
book "moral politics" And described how it all came down to 
family structure beliefs.    (028)

I probably ought to read this book.    (029)

But... As for this aurgument/discussion, I am looking for the 
tool that brings illumination, so that you see my point of view
clearer and I see yours clearer and we end up coming to a 
resolution of the difference.    (030)

That is the augument put forth about OHS systems. That they will
help us understand deeper...     (031)

Lets work it out by hand.     (032)

So we have this list of auguments and positions. Which is 
nessesarily incomplete.     (033)

Is it true to understand, that I have to explore to the tiniest detail
the whole thing?    (034)

Is there an alternative format that provides for better understanding?    (035)

It is clear that the act of summarizing what has been said is important.
We have lost several bits of the argument into the email pile.    (036)

What transformation of this pile of bits can we make that will
increase understanding.    (037)

It is not clear to me that voting on nodes helps (yet)    (038)

It would help if there was a way to catagorize auguments.
It would help if there was a way to visually see the relationship
of arguments.    (039)

I hope jacks wiki comes up soon. Perhaps that will help us.    (040)

John Sechrest          .         Helping people use
CTO PEAK -              .           computers and the Internet
Public Electronic         .            more effectively
Access to Knowledge,Inc       .                      
1600 SW Western, Suite 180       .            Internet: sechrest@peak.org
Corvallis Oregon 97333               .                  (541) 754-7325
                                            . http://www.peak.org/~sechrest    (041)