= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wnoise comments on Debate tools: an experience report - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (72)
I think I've come across this once before. It wouldn't have sprung to mind as connected to argument mapping, so thanks for the connection.
I'm afraid, though, that from the outside it doesn't look like it contributes much to what I'm after, which is exposing the structure of the cryonics debate or decision. Or is there some place where the source code to the inferential chains is published?
The intent is to have a shared model, that allows a conversation to turn away from "doesn't - does so", and toward "this spot is where we disagree".
The entire source code and history is published at http://www.gitorious.org/worldview and this includes the sample worldviews:
http://www.gitorious.org/worldview/worldview/blobs/master/topics/axiom_of_choice.wvm
includes lines such as:
(CHOICE <=> TRICHOTOMY)
(CHOICE => !MEASURE)
(CHOICE => UNION)
which are not the inferential chains, just the basic building blocks. The inferential chains themselves are generated on the fly. No, it doesn't by itself lead to a good visualization of the argument structures, though it should be pretty easy to write some code to run these through graphviz's dot (or any other) graph visualizer. You do have to figure out how to represent harder implications, such as "(DETERMIN & FREEWILL => !NOFTL)", but a box per conjunction/disjunction isn't too hard.
Yes, this doesn't quite do that yet, but it seems to be a reasonable starting point.