Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Four Goals (was)Fwd: [issues] reply to Tony's comment
Good posts, John.
I especially like that power point presentation. Well done.
I'll look at a couple of the papers tonight. (01)
"John J. Deneen" wrote:
>
> A software tool called Reason!Able helps expands the brain's capacity to cope with
> complex arguments.
>
> E.G., For the case of reducing our use of fossil fuels, try using Reason!Able - an
> introductory PowerPoint presentation. Download the zip file (500k)
> < http://www.goreason.com/presentations/Using_ReasonAble.zip >
>
> Also, here's some interesting papers relative to ba-unrev-talk and interest in
> argument mapping:
>
> 1) What is Argument Mapping?
> < http://www.austhink.org/argumentmapping/ >
>
> What is reasoning and argumentation?
> Reasoning and argumentation are closely related. Reasoning is a cognitive
> activity, argumentation is reasoning, exercised in a social context.
>
> 3) Argument Mapping with Reason!Able
>
> van Gelder, T. J. (forthcoming). Argument Mapping with Reason!Able. The American
> Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers
>
> "[I]t is also important to realise that these are early days in the development of
> computer-supported argument mapping. Back in 1962, Douglas Englebart imagined and
> predicted computer-supported argument mapping as a means of augmenting human
> intellect (Engelbart,
> 1962). Four decades later, his vision is at last starting to be realised.
> Reason!Able (and other packages available today) are like Model T Fords compared
> with the automobiles of today, let alone the “maglevs”5 of the future. I brashly
> predict that once the technology becomes sufficiently advanced, those who deal
> with complex arguments for a living will switch to the new methods just as the
> accounting profession has switched entirely to computer packages in preference to
> the old system of ledgers and manual entries and calculations."
>
> 3) Enhancing Deliberation Through Computer Supported Argument Mapping
>
> van Gelder, T. J. (forthcoming). Enhancing Deliberation Through Computer-Supported
> Argument Mapping. In P. Kirschner & S. Buckingham Shum & C. Carr (Eds.),
> Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational
> Sense-Making. London: Springer-Verlag.
>
> Conclusion
> "Deliberation is the primary means by which we strive for, and sometimes actually
> find, the truth on important, complex issues. Anything which enhances deliberation
> thereby enhances our ability to know the truth. Argument mapping can substantially
> enhance deliberation, relative to traditional practices; indeed, I know of no
> other approach which can make a comparable difference. The emergence of new,
> dedicated argument-mapping support tools will, I believe, enable argument mapping
> to become widespread practice in schools, and in the workplace, in domains as
> various as policy making, research, politics, the law, and dispute resolution. If
> all this is correct, computer-supported argument mapping ought, in the long run,
> contribute substantially to human well-being. In this sense, our project is a
> extension of the Enlightenment vision of progress through the refinement and
> application of Reason."
>
> More info
> < http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/reason/ >
>
> Other Software Tools
>
> a) ARAUCARIA
> "Araucaria is a software tool (written in Java) for analysing arguments. It aids a
> user in reconstructing and diagramming an argument using a simple point-and-click
> interface. The software also supports argumentation schemes, and provides a
> user-customisable set of schemes with which to analyse arguments.
>
> Once arguments have been analysed they can be saved in a portable format called
> "XML". XML is a flexible language which can easily be used to generate web pages
> and data with which to populate a database."
>
> The software is free (it is released under the GNU General Public License) and
> version 1.0 is now available for download. <
> http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/download.html >
> < http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/index.html >
>
> b) ATHENA
> The Athena software (written in Java) is designed to support analysis and
> production of reasoning and argumentation by students in higher education at
> undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
>
> ATHENA ISSA 2002.zip (350kB)
> < http://www.athenasoft.org/sub/documents/ATHENA%20ISSA%202002.zip >
>
> This is a presentation of the design ideas behind Athena software and education. A
> comparison with a similar package (ReasonAble) is provided.
>
> The Athena 2.0 computer program may be used freely for non-commercial purposes.
> < http://www.athenasoft.org/sub/software.htm >
>
> The project has been sponsored by The Council for the Renewal of Higher Education,
> The National Agency for Higher Education, Stockholm, Sweden
> < http://www.athenasoft.org/ >
>
> groups.yahoo.com/group/argumap
> http://www.goreason.com
>
> c) GeNIe (Graphical Network Interface) and SMILE (Structural Modeling, Inference,
> and Learning Engine)
>
> Directed to the high- end of the user spectrum is the program Genie, produced at
> Carnegie- Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Genie enables the user to draw influence
> diagrams and calculate conditional probabilities and expected utilities on the
> basis of probabilities and utilities, entered by an expert user.
> < http://www2.sis.pitt.edu/~genie/about_genie.html >
>
> The three levels of software differ with respect to how much of calculation they
> employ. At a low level, Belvedere contains no calculations. Reason! Able and
> Athena, at a middle level, contain some assignments of numbers and, in Athena,
> some capacities for helping the user to use certain rules- of thumb for filtering
> away his worst arguments. Genie, finally, contains advanced theory-based
> capacities for calculations, based on expected utility and Bayesian probabilities.
>
> Jack Park wrote:
>
> > Paul Werbos, responding to some comments by Tony Judge on the Issues list,
> > lists 4 goals, aiming towards which, in his opinion, are crucial to the
> > future.
> >
> > >From: "Paul J. Werbos" <pwerbos@nsf.gov>
> > >
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >In my view, the hope of developing a sustainable global energy system is
> > >ESSENTIAL and NECESSARY but very far from SUFFICIENT
> > >to the hope of achieving global sustainability on earth. Because we have
> > >some unique points of leverage and capability related to that
> > >goal, it is reasonable for us to spend a disproportionately large share of
> > >our time on that goal (among others), relative to other goals --
> > >like water, food, population, war-and-peace and education -- which are
> > >equally critical, which merit our very part-time support, but which we cannot
> > >influence quite as much, at the present time. "We" meaning me and my
> > >friend at this moment.
> > >
> > >No matter what taxes and quotas and laws and new age prayers to Gaia we
> > >can try to invoke... it seems pretty clear that we could
> > >not achieve a globally sustainably energy system without either radical
> > >changes in technology or throwing billions of people into poverty
> > >or starvation... and I prefer the former.
> > >
> > >Assuming we do not accept the billions-more-in-poverty scenarios, a
> > >sustainable global energy system must include a web of technologies which
> > >allows one to meet (at least) four (principal) constraints simultaneously:
> > >
> > >(1) An increase in the available supply of energy AS SUCH, from unlimited
> > >sources, without a big increase in price;
> > >
> > >(2) An increase in the supply of TRANSPORTATION FUEL, also from unlimited
> > >sources, without a big increase in price per mile;
> > >
> > >(3) Zero net CO2 emission for it all;
> > >
> > >(4) The ability to do all this without depending on the use of nuclear
> > >power plants in the developing world. (I would not
> > >use the word "sustainable" to describe what would happen if the
> > >availability of nuclear materials and technology were to be
> > >multiplied a thousand-fold beyond what the creaky status quo already looks
> > >like in the developing world.)
> > >
> > >It is simply not proven that these constraints can ever be met -- but
> > >there are a number of promising options for high-risk
> > >high-potential research, and there is a clear need for the world to
> > >maximize all truly plausible options along these lines.
> > >There is a huge amount of rhetoric and short-term research whose funders
> > >talk about sustainability... but precious little on
> > >those options which address the hope of really ACHIEVING the four goals.
> > >(Some people call it "making progress" to spend
> > >billions on tweaking gasoline-burning internal combustion engines... but
> > >1,000 years of that would not get us to the ultimate
> > >point we need to aim for. When governments mandate or even just
> > >incentivize that sort of thing, they actually reduce
> > >our chances of making it in the long term, because they distract attention
> > >from tehe more radical things we need to be doing.)
> > >
> > >Anyway... no need for me to go on TO[O] long on this... someone needs to
> > >really attend to the technical nitty-gritty of these
> > >issues... someone must "take out THAT trash".... ESPECIALLY BECAUSE there
> > >has been precious little serious substantive support
> > >for what really needs to be done. And a lot of that requires dialogue with
> > >the folks who are critical to developing that
> > >technology.
> > >
> > ><snip>
> > >Best of luck,
> > >
> > > Paul W.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
> > Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.
> >
> > http://www.nexist.org/wiki/User0Blog
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Introducing NetZero Long Distance
> Unlimited Long Distance only $29.95/ month!
> Sign Up Today! www.netzerolongdistance.com (02)