gusl: (Default)
I finally have a concrete plan for my "learning argumentative structures" project.

(1) Make a corpus from TruthMapping.com and from iLogos logs, from arguments that have short boxes and use a formalistic style.
(1.1) Ask my sources for XML files containing the raw arguments.
(1.2) Annotate each inference (triangle) as: WTF!, Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, UI-MP, UI-MT, EI, and some commonly-occurring fallacies.
*: I'm not sure what to do when the inference step is not a triangle (i.e. #premises!=2). At first pass I intend to just ignore them.
(2) Train a classifier with this annotated corpus. Triangle-shaped subtrees are positive examples. As negative examples, I could use triangles randomly-generated from other boxes in the argument.
(3) Use this to judge when a triangle is valid (and, in particular, what kind of inference it is). Evaluate using cross-validation.

---

Building on this idea: we may have a corpus of an argument-diagramming task, showing the source text and the diagram next to each other.
(1) Annotate it by linking (this can probably be done automatically, by text similarity)
(2) Learn how to roughly perform this task automatically (the text in the boxes is likely to be clunky).
(2.1) Evaluate: do automatically-generated diagrams correspond closely to human-made diagrams?
(3) Using the classifier above, automatically check whether the inferences in the generated map are valid. This is a judgement of the validity of the argument presented in textual form.
(4) New task for the purposes of evaluating the combined algorithms: formalize a text, and judge the validity of the inferences. Does the computer's performance correspond closely to human performance?
gusl: (Default)
TruthMapping.com might have exactly the argumentation data that I've been looking for!

Here's a silly logic paradox:
Proof that Santa Claus exists (i.e. all fictional entities exist). I remember a similar argument about unicorns... One solution is to say that "Santa Claus has a red suit" refers to a fictional quality of having red suits, and that fictional qualities do not imply reality.

I wish these argument-trees could be made binary (like all deductive inference rules).

It's remarkable how badly people argue. I'd like to create topics and only have philosophically-trained people to reply. I think that should create the data I want. I should also encourage them to use simple, complete sentences, and to keep the boxes small.

---

Desired improvements:
* their comment structure should be a tree. Ideally, the arguer would be able to expand the tree as a response to reader skepticism, by adding justifications at leaves (axioms). Different readers should be free to copy the trees, and change them to make them valid.
* add an operation by which you make an implicit premise explicit, which would make the inference follow. (Keeping the tree binary will probably require refactoring the node.)
* add an operation by which you make an implicit premise explicit, which would make the inference follow, and then dispute it.
* more precision in creating "dispute" arcs, to indicate whether you're disputing the statement itself or the claim it follows from its stated premises. (thanks to pragmatics, people who agree with an inference will tend not to question its validity)
gusl: (Default)
See http://www.optimizelife.com/wiki/index.php/My_Breathing#Causal_Processes

All the pieces finally fall into place:

Causal diagram of Chronic Rhinitis

Solid lines mean positive influence (+), i.e. more of the source tends to cause more of the target.
Dashed lines mean negative influence (-), i.e. more of the source tends to cause less of the target.


N.B.: I don't suffer from all causes or all symptoms above.

I could add a node for "vasoconstrictor" (e.g. Afrin) right next to "fluticasone", having a negative (e.g. health-positive) effect on "amount of blood in mucosa", but the problem is that vasoconstrictors have a short-term effect that rebound, becoming a positive (e.g. health-negative) effect.

Thanks WikiTex/Wikisophia, for providing me with a sandbox! Wiki code is behind the cut.

Fluticasone appears to be effective in the long run. But if I end up needing to use it for the rest of my life, then I'll go for a ~50% partial turbinectomy (under the knife, since laser seems to damage mucociliary function).

I am interested in the semantics of these diagrams, and how they relate to argument maps and formal proofs.


semantics of diagrams

* Say we want to instantiate a particular allergen and a particular individual: what kind of graph rewriting will we need to do?

* What about expressing the distinction between independent and dependent influences (e.g. conjunction, synergy)?

* What about tagging nodes with information about which leaves are controllable?

* Some effects have preconditions: snoring requires sleeping. Sleeping requires lying down. So we have an implicit relationship in the graph: the consequence is that turbinate enlargement will be worse during sleep. Could conclusions of the kind be drawn automatically, by simply adding to the implicit information to the current representation?


Read more... )

Profile

gusl: (Default)
gusl

December 2016

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18 192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags