TruthMapping.com

[gusl]

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)

Comments

[dachte.livejournal.com]

At Ohio State University, in the AI part of the CS building there were some giant posters on the walls with argument maps on them. I was impressed at how good an idea they were, and in the many years since graduation have thought about them regularly. I'm pleased to see that software to manage them is now coming of age -- it means that my long-term plan to implement them is unnecessary.