12 KiB
[Q][D]On the application of "Applied Rationality"
-
Author: u/Cdmbr *
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/2zcwka/qdon_the_application_of_applied_rationality/
-
Score: 14
-
Created: 2015-03-17T15:20:40
Post:
First of all, this thread is not really about rational or rationalist fiction.
I'm a bit afraid that I may be posting in the wrong subreddit. I know of r/fallacy, r/gametheory, r/freethought, and r/logic, which are dedicated to fallacies, game theory, "science is best", and mathematical logic, respectively. However, r/fallacy is stuck as some sort of esoteric fallacy philosophy, game theory is playing film critic of the world, freethought is link-centric, and none addresses the use of rational thought in day to day life. And of course, there's r/rational, which is my best choice. But I'd much rather post appropriately.
The reason I ask is because I've begun working on a systematic formula for rational discussion, and I don't know where to share it with. I've grown quite restless with all these "debates" where two completely different things are argued for, or empirically supported rebukes simply count towards "points" and do nothing to change anybody's mind.
In essence, it involves recording all arguments as declarative statements (with references), recording all counter-arguments as declarative statements (with references), assessing the strength of all statements (using those references) and drafting new arguments from the aftermath (and repeating). Its aim is to reduce miscommunication and force participants to actually update their beliefs when faced with convincing evidence.
I've only have the experience of a few university courses in psychology, formal logic and research methods, so it would be neat having more experienced people on board. I don't really see it going anywhere; perhaps a few small mock debates to test it out, but I imagine it'll never catch on. It's in a grey area where it might be useful for civilian debates while requiring too much effort.
Comments?
Comments:
u/Someone-Else-Else [+10] Anti-Spiral (an hour later)
This sounds really interesting.
One thing you could do to make this more popular is translate a regular debate - something like a Presidential debate - into this format.
Another thing is allowing refutations whenever an arguer feels like it - people aren't going to change their mind if they think of a comeback two weeks later.
u/Cdmbr [+3] (8 hours later)
Great idea with translating a debate. You comment actually just reminded me that the inception of this idea came during the presidential debates. Real-time update of such a debate log by fact checkers could work to reign the debates back from being sophist popularity contests. I'll start working on it.
I'm having trouble understanding the second part. Could you perhaps clarify with an example?
Cheers, thanks for the comment.
u/Someone-Else-Else [+1] Anti-Spiral (9 hours later)
So I talk to a friend about how unfair it is that the Chancellor of my university is making $400k a year, plus benefits.
He says that's the wage determined by how much people are willing to work for. I shrug, feel vaguely uneasy about that, and don't change my mind.
A week later, I realize that I felt uneasy because no, the wage isn't just what people are willing to work for, it's lessened when lots of people want the job, and the chancellor position is one of the most prestigious in the country. Are intelligent people willing to work for less than $400k?
If, during that week, the debate closes, my point never gets brought up, and neither myself nor my friend changes their mind.
u/Cdmbr [+2] (10 hours later)
Sweet. My solution to that would be that there is no real time limit on an answer, as all work can be done on paper. Such a thing would be an issue if the debate is is real time, but in this age, the nature of the debate could be changed to be more deliberating, taking more time to explore all aspects of the issue.
Although if it still happens, and one is left with a counter-argument after the debate closes, I can't see a solution aside from requesting a reopening of the discussion.
u/Cdmbr [+3] (30 minutes later)
Here's the thing.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Yu8hJn4tf0yNTj1IQbxK7IX9MGZHkmon-iEHR7ZRemA/edit?usp=sharing
u/Ty-Guy9 [+1] Wants to become a "FAI" (a day later)
I'm pretty confused by this link. I thought it was going to be a proof of concept via translation of a presidential debate, but it's all x's, y's, z's, etc. I'll bet it helped you solidify your thoughts/processes, but without more explanation (in several places) I'm not hopeful to get much out of it. Was it intended as a proof of concept?
u/Cdmbr [+1] (a day later)
It's just something I hastily composed in sleep deprived motivation. the x y zs are placeholders, just to show the gist of the idea. Something like a rudimentary proof of concept for a proof of concept. Transcription of a debate will be coming later.
u/Khaos1125 [+3] (23 hours later)
I would look into argument mapping as it has many of the characteristics you mention. http://timvangelder.com/2009/02/17/what-is-argument-mapping/
I would also look into http://www.debatepedia.org/ , as they also seem to have a similar goal, although I think the format could be better
u/Khaos1125 [+3] (23 hours later)
http://honestargument.com/ is another website you should check. Even if you eschew their format for something different, being aware of other formats that exist can help you tweak your own
u/Cdmbr [+2] (a day later)
Thanks for the content, they inspired a few new ideas.
u/Transfuturist [+2] Carthago delenda est. (3 hours later)
I had a similar idea, for a graph-theoretic representation of argumentation to canonize arguments for and against certain positions. The idea would be to take all of the replicated work done across internet arguments (objections and refutations, noting fallacies, etc). Whatever website hosted it would need to be easy to reference, and it could be used as a source of arguments, evidence, and beliefs.
Of course, the point behind internet arguments is to get offended and solidify your position further along, so it wouldn't really do much for those who don't care about being right, but otherwise I think it's a good idea. There could also be representations of debates and arguments in the form of the graph, where each statement would be transcribed into its graph-theoretic representation, and all of the arguments/evidence for and against each statement would be plainly visible.
The idea would require (re: be helped along significantly by) a social media button, kind of like the social button rolls at the end of blog posts, or something similarly ubiquitous to long-form argument. I can think of many ways to improve on the current state of debate graphs, and I suspect this sort of thing might be what EY designed and gave to a friend to execute.
In the end, the biggest obstacles would be popularity and resistance to the format. It would probably function as a thread-killer, and the way to prevent it from becoming a gish gallop would have to be the social element on the graph itself. Ultimately, though, I don't think trusting users is a very good way to ensure neutrality/objectivity, so some form of curation would be required.
Enter the AGI.
u/Cdmbr [+2] (9 hours later)
Awesome idea. I imagine that such a rendering of the arguments would make it easier to follow the debate, compared to my list form.
You gave me a vision of people referring to past debate logs in the way court systems refer to previous case rulings.
"As has been concluded by Josh v. Gerald, 2016, reddit, calling someone Genghis Khan is analogous to Godwin's Law. I bring this as support to my claim that the referring to me as Kim Il Sung, another historical dictator, is also in violation of Godwin's Law."
Indeed, it's quite dry, and having a neutral third party seems required no matter what. But I'm hoping it's a cool little way to practice logic and rationality.
PS. I'm pretty sure a lot of what you said went over my head. Thanks for the comment, and sorry for anything I've missed!
u/Transfuturist [+2] Carthago delenda est. (9 hours later)
Thanks. It's not exactly a workable idea, and I'm in over my head just going to college and finding a job, so I guess it's just out there now.
It would be awesome if it was actually likely to change anything. But I'm being pessimistic.
u/Cdmbr [+2] (9 hours later)
Eh. I honestly don't see anyone ever using this. Consider it realism with a healthy dose of anti-positivity bias bias. Ha. Cheers mate, good luck.
u/Ty-Guy9 [+1] Wants to become a "FAI" (a day later)
The idea reminds me of how the US Founders kept a record of the proceedings of their meetings - the minutes is what I think they were called, and they intended to be available for review in later meetings, if not beyond. Also, a person to neutrally govern the proceedings was elected at the start of everything, and was called the Chairman. So there's some historical precedence for certain of your ideas in a real-time, debate-centric environment, in which some impressive decisions were made.
Now am I thinking of the Constitutional Convention, or of the meetings that gave rise to the Declaration? It's been a while since those delightful history classes.
u/eaglejarl [+1] (a day later)
Check "David's Sling, by Marc Stiegler. His Zetetic Institute does exactly this. (I hope I spelled the Zetetic right -- haven't read the book in years.)
u/blazinghand [+2] Chaos Undivided (9 hours later)
This sounds cool and interesting, and I wish you the best of luck. It might be worth checking out /r/lesswrong, which is a subreddit related to the Less Wrong rationalist community. Other places to check out include the comments section of the blog Slate Star Codex.
/r/rational, despite the name, is actually a subreddit devoted to rational and rationalist fiction (and fanfiction). You'll certainly find people in /r/rational interested in what you're doing here-- many will share your interests. Hopefully in this thread and at the communities I linked you find what you're looking for.
All that being said, I will be downvoting this post to reduce its visibility on this subreddit. I wish to discourage divergence from the core goal of r/rational , even when I think the thread is good, like this one is.
u/Cdmbr [+2] (10 hours later)
Thanks! Lesswrong seems to be the subreddit I was looking for.
I know, /r/rational is my favourite subreddit. And I'm cool with the downvote, I can see that it's a valid reason. Cheers!
u/Ty-Guy9 [+1] Wants to become a "FAI" (2 days later)
A quick look at a few of the references others have mentioned gave me a sense of the importance of including the basics in your schema, such as: descriptions, related assumptions, and discussions of relevance/significance for points and supporting/counter points.
If you don't mind flash games, I recommend taking Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher (a creative little introduction to philosophy) as an example of a basic system for offering meaningful choices in a debate. The character has these choices:
Ask for Clarification
Question Relevance
Press for Backing
Challenge with a Counterstatement
The game focuses on proving the opponent wrong, which makes for an interesting game but isn't usual ideal otherwise. The choice framework I listed above should be adapted to a descriptive/explorative purpose and a multiple-PC setting:
Add/request further clarification/references/links
Confirm/question relevance
Offer/request supporting evidence
Offer/request evidence to the contrary
u/None [+1] (2 days later)
/r/rationalism needs more submitters and content!
u/Cdmbr [+2] (2 days later)
Oh sweet, didn't notice that subreddit. I'll make sure to update on there.