No. You drew an analogy between debating and factory production with your reference to Goldratt’s The Goal. You mentioned bottlenecks when addressing debates. My question was intended to extend your analogy appropriately, that is, to ask:
If a debate is a product, and you intend to raise throughput and remove bottlenecks, how do you decide when a debate is produced as opposed to still in production?
Oh. One way to determine the end of a debate is “mutual agreement or length 5 impasse chain”. Many other stopping conditions could be tried.
If you want to improve the debating throughput, I think you’ll want to measure the value of a debate, not just the total number of debates completed. A simple, bad model would be counting the number of nodes in the debate tree. A better model would be having each person in the debate say which nodes in the debate tree involved new value for them – they found it surprising, learned something new, changed their mind in some way, were inspired to think a new counter-argument, etc. Then count the nodes each person values and add the counts for a total value. It’s also possible to use some of the concepts without having measurements.
So I was reviewing your material on trees but I got a bit lost. Do you and your debate opponent each create a tree of assertions that you modify as you progress through a learning/debate process? If so, what defines the links between nodes?
You wrote something about a child node contradicting a parent that I didn’t get at all. I can track down the quote, if that’s helpful.
EDIT: found the quote!
Decisive (also called conclusive or essential) arguments argue that the parent is incorrect. That implies that at least one of the parent or argument must be incorrect.
A picture would make this easier to understand.
You introduce what I take to be several types of node structures:
conclusive/essential arguments
positive arguments
inconclusive negative arguments
explanatory comments
claims
facts
explanations of claims
I’m not sure if all those are nodes or some refer to node groups, I couldn’t find visual examples to make that clear.
I have not tried using a tree to model a decisive argument where the rejected claim is listed in the tree. To do something similar, I would create a root node for the conclusion “It is not the case that <<claim>>” with premises as child nodes.
But your node system, did you develop these node choices from experience because you find them more helpful than some alternatives, or are they part of a formal system that you studied, or is their origin something else?
With a tree built on premises and conclusions, the root node is the final conclusion. I learned to structure all arguments in textual outline form, and mostly stick with that, it’s what I was taught.
There are plenty of examples on the forum of folks who write entire posts as an argument, or outline their arguments or points, so we are in good company.
However, I would love to learn an algorithmic process for how two debaters work from separate trees to a single combined tree, whether it uses textual outlines or tree graphics. Are you aware of something like that or does your current system allow that? It would be new to me.
I’m not sure if all those are nodes or some refer to node groups
In general, any node could be replaced by a node group that shows more internal detail or structure. Any one idea could be written as a single big node or a group of nodes. Node groups can be colored or circled to indicate that they partly function as one thing.
what defines the links between nodes?
For conversation related trees, child nodes typically mean either a reply or additional detail. Additional detail is the same issue as node groups.
For replies, a strict debate tree would have decisive refutation as the only type of reply. You could also allow comments, indecisive arguments, positive arguments and other replies in a tree – I’d just recommend clear labelling for what is intended as a decisive refutation and what isn’t.
But your node system, did you develop these node choices from experience because you find them more helpful than some alternatives, or are they part of a formal system that you studied, or is their origin something else?
Karl Popper developed a fallibilist, evolutionary epistemology focused on criticism and error correction. He criticized using positive (supporting or justifying) arguments and recommended instead using only negative, refuting arguments. But he said basically you can look at the critical arguments and evaluate how well (to what degree) each idea stands up to criticism and pick the best one. While trying to understand and improve his ideas, I discovered that indecisive arguments are flawed too, and that ideas should be evaluated in a binary way instead of by degree of goodness or badness.
Trees and other diagrams have a lot of value pretty regardless of one’s views on epistemology. But my particular type of debate tree, which focuses on decisive refutations, is more specifically related to my epistemology.
However, I would love to learn an algorithmic process for how two debaters work from separate trees to a single combined tree, whether it uses textual outlines or tree graphics. Are you aware of something like that or does your current system allow that? It would be new to me.
It’s useful to independently make trees and compare them (differences can help you find disagreements or ambiguities) or to make a tree collaboratively. I also have a specific method where both people would always create identical trees – it creates a tree everyone will agree on. I’ve written this method down several times but I wasn’t able to quickly find it. It’s short so I’ll just write it again:
Have a conversation/debate. Say whatever you want. Keep a debate tree with only short, clear, precise statements of important arguments (big nodes or node groups should be avoided, though aren’t strictly prohibited – I recommend keeping the tree compact but you don’t necessarily have to. you can make a second tree with more detail if you want to). This tree functions as an organizational tool and debate summary, and shows what has an (alleged) refutation or not. Nodes are added to the tree only when someone decides he’s ready to put an argument in the tree – he then decides on the wording and also specifies the parent node. Since each person has full control over the nodes he adds to the tree, and can add nodes unilaterally, there shouldn’t be any disagreements about what’s in the tree. Before putting a node in the tree, he can optionally discuss it informally and ask clarifying questions, share a draft for feedback, etc. The basic idea is to talk about a point enough that you can add it to the tree in a way where it won’t need to be changed later – get your ideas stable before putting them in the tree. Removing a node from the tree, or editing it, is only allowed by unanimous agreement.
I need time to review what you wrote and try some things out. If you have any more writing on these methods to point me to, or graphical examples, I would like to see them.
Good, Elliot, it’s going good
.
I replied on your shortform. Read there to find out more about my work on my debate policies and my study of your tree-based debate process.
There’s much more writing. See e.g. Multi-Factor Decision Making Math and some articles in the Classics and Research sections at https://criticalfallibilism.com And the Idea Trees Links article has many examples as do my videos.
Thank you for the reply, Elliot.
No. You drew an analogy between debating and factory production with your reference to Goldratt’s The Goal. You mentioned bottlenecks when addressing debates. My question was intended to extend your analogy appropriately, that is, to ask:
If a debate is a product, and you intend to raise throughput and remove bottlenecks, how do you decide when a debate is produced as opposed to still in production?
Oh. One way to determine the end of a debate is “mutual agreement or length 5 impasse chain”. Many other stopping conditions could be tried.
If you want to improve the debating throughput, I think you’ll want to measure the value of a debate, not just the total number of debates completed. A simple, bad model would be counting the number of nodes in the debate tree. A better model would be having each person in the debate say which nodes in the debate tree involved new value for them – they found it surprising, learned something new, changed their mind in some way, were inspired to think a new counter-argument, etc. Then count the nodes each person values and add the counts for a total value. It’s also possible to use some of the concepts without having measurements.
So I was reviewing your material on trees but I got a bit lost. Do you and your debate opponent each create a tree of assertions that you modify as you progress through a learning/debate process? If so, what defines the links between nodes?
You wrote something about a child node contradicting a parent that I didn’t get at all.
I can track down the quote, if that’s helpful.EDIT: found the quote!
A picture would make this easier to understand.
You introduce what I take to be several types of node structures:
conclusive/essential arguments
positive arguments
inconclusive negative arguments
explanatory comments
claims
facts
explanations of claims
I’m not sure if all those are nodes or some refer to node groups, I couldn’t find visual examples to make that clear.
I have not tried using a tree to model a decisive argument where the rejected claim is listed in the tree. To do something similar, I would create a root node for the conclusion “It is not the case that <<claim>>” with premises as child nodes.
But your node system, did you develop these node choices from experience because you find them more helpful than some alternatives, or are they part of a formal system that you studied, or is their origin something else?
With a tree built on premises and conclusions, the root node is the final conclusion. I learned to structure all arguments in textual outline form, and mostly stick with that, it’s what I was taught.
There are plenty of examples on the forum of folks who write entire posts as an argument, or outline their arguments or points, so we are in good company.
However, I would love to learn an algorithmic process for how two debaters work from separate trees to a single combined tree, whether it uses textual outlines or tree graphics. Are you aware of something like that or does your current system allow that? It would be new to me.
In general, any node could be replaced by a node group that shows more internal detail or structure. Any one idea could be written as a single big node or a group of nodes. Node groups can be colored or circled to indicate that they partly function as one thing.
For conversation related trees, child nodes typically mean either a reply or additional detail. Additional detail is the same issue as node groups.
For replies, a strict debate tree would have decisive refutation as the only type of reply. You could also allow comments, indecisive arguments, positive arguments and other replies in a tree – I’d just recommend clear labelling for what is intended as a decisive refutation and what isn’t.
Karl Popper developed a fallibilist, evolutionary epistemology focused on criticism and error correction. He criticized using positive (supporting or justifying) arguments and recommended instead using only negative, refuting arguments. But he said basically you can look at the critical arguments and evaluate how well (to what degree) each idea stands up to criticism and pick the best one. While trying to understand and improve his ideas, I discovered that indecisive arguments are flawed too, and that ideas should be evaluated in a binary way instead of by degree of goodness or badness.
Trees and other diagrams have a lot of value pretty regardless of one’s views on epistemology. But my particular type of debate tree, which focuses on decisive refutations, is more specifically related to my epistemology.
It’s useful to independently make trees and compare them (differences can help you find disagreements or ambiguities) or to make a tree collaboratively. I also have a specific method where both people would always create identical trees – it creates a tree everyone will agree on. I’ve written this method down several times but I wasn’t able to quickly find it. It’s short so I’ll just write it again:
Have a conversation/debate. Say whatever you want. Keep a debate tree with only short, clear, precise statements of important arguments (big nodes or node groups should be avoided, though aren’t strictly prohibited – I recommend keeping the tree compact but you don’t necessarily have to. you can make a second tree with more detail if you want to). This tree functions as an organizational tool and debate summary, and shows what has an (alleged) refutation or not. Nodes are added to the tree only when someone decides he’s ready to put an argument in the tree – he then decides on the wording and also specifies the parent node. Since each person has full control over the nodes he adds to the tree, and can add nodes unilaterally, there shouldn’t be any disagreements about what’s in the tree. Before putting a node in the tree, he can optionally discuss it informally and ask clarifying questions, share a draft for feedback, etc. The basic idea is to talk about a point enough that you can add it to the tree in a way where it won’t need to be changed later – get your ideas stable before putting them in the tree. Removing a node from the tree, or editing it, is only allowed by unanimous agreement.
Really interesting, Elliot.
I need time to review what you wrote and try some things out. If you have any more writing on these methods to point me to, or graphical examples, I would like to see them.
Thanks!!
How’s it going?
Good, Elliot, it’s going good . I replied on your shortform. Read there to find out more about my work on my debate policies and my study of your tree-based debate process.
There’s much more writing. See e.g. Multi-Factor Decision Making Math and some articles in the Classics and Research sections at https://criticalfallibilism.com And the Idea Trees Links article has many examples as do my videos.