[ExI] Argument mapping

[Kevin H]

I don't know how related this is to transhumanism, but I wanted to procure
opinions about argument mapping on the internet and it's effectness for
better harnessing collective intelligence.  A good example is
www.debategraph.org, though my question is more aimed at the concept rather
than any particular implementation.

My perspective on this is the idea that our minds are, among other things,
processing units but, unlike a computer, the results of this processing is
rarely saved and nor is it usually accessible to other people.  Okay, the
previous statement isn't strictly true for in fact, humanity has been coming
up with all sorts of methods for doing exactly that: from papyrus scrolls,
to books and pamphlets, to the internet and wikis.  Even so, I think a great
deal is lost, for example, when you usually have to do a lot of research in
order to even assess the primary conclusions of a given work.  I think the
situation is inefficient and, in most cases, not worth the effort, when much
of your time reading a particular work is spent trying to identify the
arguments in order to evaluate them and compare them with other arguments
presented by other people.  Also consider, for example, that if you were to
research a subject like climate change, most of the works you'll encounter
will repeat the same arguments, which is inefficient.

Even on this list, I think the same subjects are brought up, and the
arguments made, often by new people who haven't noticed that they've been
made before; and there's no convenient method of determining what the
overall development of the discussion has been other than crude
text-searching through the archives (though I'm pleased that the archives
exist).

The point isn't to replace ordinary discourse and essay-style debates, but I
think a great deal can be achieved by using an alternative format, and at a
certain level even have entire discussions using argument mapping software.
And think the function of argument mapping would be to provide an avenue for
people to evaluate arguments as quickly and accurately as possible, so the
design decisions in such software should be evaluated to those ends.

The primary downside that I can see to such a method is that argument
mapping will require a skill at analysis that isn't common, mainly because
it isn't taught; on the other hand I think regular use of such software
would have the positive benefit of developing these skills.  The other
downside is that with most of the debates that would, in effect, benefit
from these tools, the relevant argument maps are likely to become large,
complex, and unwieldy, so it's a question as to how much the software can
automate and, perhaps, give us the ability to collapse and expand arguments
to the desired granularity.

Best regards,

*Kevin*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080517/82934479/attachment.html>