[ExI] Argument mapping

[Brent Allsop]

Kevin,

I think this is a good surface comparison.  Thanks.

Canonizer is more of a survey system, and seeks to concisely state and 
measure consensus (or lack thereof) with all interested people. While 
debate graph just collects all related ideas to any controversial issue 
and showing lots of relationships between them.  With debate graph, the 
ideas and arguments tend to replicate and multiply and be repeated in 
myriad different ways, while with the Canonizer, the goal is to murge 
and unify all the most important arguments, as concisely stated as 
possible, into camps to acheive the greatest possible membership in any 
particular camp.

Also, while debate graph has a primitive average voting system for 
individual ideas or arguments, canonizer has the ability to know a 
persons reputation.  For example, a goal of the canonizer is to have 
various canonization algorithms that can measure consensus in different 
ways.  For example, what is the consensus in the general population (one 
person one vote) vs what is the consensuses of reputable scientists 
(i.e. those that have a PhD from a reputable institution on the 
subject.) or perhaps what is the consensus amongst people of a 
particular religious persuasion.


Thanks

Brent Allsop


Kevin H wrote:
> >From what I can tell, canonizer is about consensus and finding views 
> that agree or cohere with your own pre-established beliefs.  Argument 
> mapping is more about finding the logical structure of arguments so 
> they can be assessed.
>
> Kevin
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080518/2bc5a9b6/attachment.html>