
Show HN: Arguman – Argument Analysis Platform - fatiherikli
http://en.arguman.org/the-universe-is-a-simulation
======
arjie
I've always wondered if there was a platform where we could have some
standardized set of arguments regarding a proposition. Then, one would not
need to tolerate repetitive pointless discussion: something that usually
arises regarding propositions that require little expertise to discuss.

For instance, nothing would make me happier than to be able to reply to the
nth discussion regarding the idea that "the GPL is freer than the BSD licence"
with a universal fully-qualified link to every argument for and against the
idea. Or "For software engineers, open-plan offices lead to greater
productivity than individual offices".

While it may appear that this would lead to some sort of _Futurological
Congress_-esque situation where we respond to people in paragraph numbers, it
has many advantages:

* No longer will people be misled by a correct statement poorly argued for.

* No longer will message boards be polluted by the nth iteration of the same argument.

* Undiscovered lines of argument will be universally available.

Of course there's the disadvantage that you'll get less participation, and
there's value in just having some number of comments even if they're
repetitive: at the least, the desire to respond to that may bring people who
later on make novel arguments.

This seems like a fine UI to do that. Deep link to the relevant sub-graph, and
let the collective intelligence of thousands do your arguing for you. I like
it.

~~~
jsprogrammer
There is lots of rich ground here to explore, but claims like "the GPL is
freer than the BSD licence", will be open to a lot of subjectivity, due to
there being no clear (or even given) definition of 'freer'.

I think the biggest challenge is UI and user education (most people don't know
what a fallacy is, let alone how many there are and how often they likely make
them).

~~~
nhaehnle
The "X is freer than Y" example is only superficially subjective. The issue at
hand is that people disagree on what "free" means. This can be resolved in a
mutually agreeable way by first clarifying the different possible aspects of
freeness and clearly separating them out (in your example, one might state
them as: BSD allows you to do more things than GPL with source code you
receive under the respective license; GPL makes it likelier for you to receive
more source code in the future, hence leading to a larger total number of
potential actions you can do with source code over time (a point which
requires a sub-tree of arguments)).

Then you further need to relate those back to the original statement by
clarifying how different _subjective_ target functions will have you come to a
different final conclusion. (Not to mention that the "GPL is freer than BSD"
or vice versa discussion is itself merely a sub-part of the larger "GPL is
better than BSD (for my purpose)" or vice versa discussion.)

So my point is that it _is_ possible in principle to provide a fully qualified
link to a _non-subjective_ presentation of arguments on that particular issue
(and any other issue). I agree with you that the real challenge is UI, and
probably moderation more than user education.

~~~
jsprogrammer
If you get the UI right and have reliably automated (even if user-sourced)
tools for qualifying statements and disallowing (or rather, marking) logical
fallacies, the users can educate themselves.

I've played around with UI ideas in the past. I think you need a nested
structure, which can ideally be generated by the users (but would need to
conform to the basic rules of logic [to whatever extent it has been defined]).
Any argument will be in some knowledge domain, until you get to some "ultimate
high level domain" (which probably doesn't exist -- not sure how you'd
represent this in the UI; probably just the superset of all your as-yet-
undomained arguments), so the nesting of domains should be reflected in the
interface.

I think the UI problem is related to the data modeling problem. In my view, it
seems like the UI should directly expose the data model. If that is the case,
then the question is, "What is the right data model?".

For that, I think it's primarily directed graphs showing the relationship
between the arguments. Of course there is more needed, as you'd need to
annotate the arguments with various meta-arguments (eg. argument's conclusion
is assumed as premise).

I do agree that one can probably come up with solutions for handling
subjective arguments relatively well, I just think it might be difficult to
come to a "this will handle all cases" solution. If someone says a particular
argument is fallacious, why should we believe them? What happens when your
database gets spammed with tons of bogus info? How do you make sure it stays
out (or at least, can somehow be "excluded" from what you normally see)?

~~~
spdionis
Now think about finding a way to have some machine learning sytem learn out of
this... that would be interesting...

~~~
jsprogrammer
I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. If you could get arguments reduced to
individual propositions, you could begin to run the resolution algorithm to
find new conclusions.

------
kovek
I love this!!! I wish it gets pushed forward! I wish a lot of people would use
this! I think it is a great platform!

I worked on something very similar as one of my very first projects which got
me into programming. I wanted there to be a debate website where anything
could be debated using arguments. I've found that the debates I would see on
TV or in everyday discussions would not be good enough, because:

\- There was space for people to diverge off of the discussion

\- When the discussion would fork, the participants might forget some previous
arguments that were made

\- It would be difficult to come back to a previous point.

\- People would have a bias towards the arguments made by the most prestigious
side of the sides discussion a certain matter.

\- It was possible to make some claims without backing up proofs/sources.

\- Emotions could become a factor. The discussion can heat up.

I thus wrote a small website where one could post an idea as a node, and
others could reply in favor of, against the idea or under a neutral position.
The users could also vote for some nodes. The website would then become a
collection of trees. As I see it, it could be used to discuss any matters!
However, I've never really pushed the idea forward.

I've always thought about picking the project back up as I was passionate
about the idea. I've never really got around doing so (I would love to discuss
on how to get projects pushed forward). Through the years, I thought about
this website, and I've found some problems that could arise:

\- There would have to be a good user base. My perception was that people
would have less incentive to discuss where no one would listen.

\- How do you simplify ideas as much as possible? Some texts can be summarized
or shortened (and some connections like relationships to other nodes could be
added) and still have the same idea. I'm guessing this would be done using
moderation. I think this is somewhat relevant because if you're browsing a
tree of ideas, you want to do so seamlessly such that you do not lose interest
in providing your input.

\- For some, it is tiring to undergo a proper debate where the claims made
need to be backed up. A lot of people like to discuss freely, in a comfortable
setting. The usual reply system works for that.

\- How do you report an improper report?

\- I have found that many people like to stick with their beliefs more than
with research. (This point applies to debates which need evidence. Many
philosophical debates would be fine without the need for evidence.)

\- It would make sense to have some nodes point to many parent nodes. How is
that managed?

\- The users need to learn about the possible relationships between the nodes.

\- If a node would get too big, it would contain more than one idea. There has
to be a system to split nodes apart.

\- How do you deal with merging nodes?

\- How do you manage spam and moderate node creation? (I did not have a good
understanding of how to achieve these)

\- How do you deal with nodes that have been edited? I've found a way to deal
with this, but it's not as pretty as I would have liked it.

\- Watching websites like Reddit and Facebook, I realized the reply system was
enough as it allowed people as much room as they needed to make their point,
using text. The only issue is organizing the ideas properly in this case.
Hacker News had the reply system and people were using it to lead great
discussions.

I've also thought about extending relationships to not just logical
relationships. The reason I was looking to do this was that I wanted to find
the simplest and most elegant solution that could apply to many use cases (not
ALL the use cases though). It fitted (and still somewhat does fit in) how I
think about writing good software (please someone correct me if I am wrong).
The relationships would be akin to: Grows from, Follows, Is of type, Contains,
etc.

I thought that this would essentially grow into a database of everything, a
little bit like Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia does not allow much discussion
(As far as I know).

------
platz
But.. however...because.. are too simple. There needs to be weighting. Why not
use something like what law folks use to qualify arguments
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis_(argumentation_theory...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis_\(argumentation_theory\)#Stasis)

Also look into Toulmin - claim, warrant
[http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/toulmin2.htm](http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/toulmin2.htm)

~~~
MarkPNeyer
i built a ui mockup of something like this a long time ago.

[http://s3.neyer.me/consensus/](http://s3.neyer.me/consensus/)

makes me think i should dust it off..

~~~
platz
Might as well throw in upvotes too

------
vinchuco
It is an interesting turn of events that Arguman can be used to improve the
design of Arguman.

[1] [http://en.arguman.org/there-should-be-inbuilt-definitions-
fo...](http://en.arguman.org/there-should-be-inbuilt-definitions-for-logical-
fallacies-in-arguman)

------
spoiler
I love the ideea of this!

I have a question: When using because/but/however, do they apply to the
hypothesis or to the premise? It would seem logical that they apply to the
premise, however the count on the homepage is slightly misleading. I thought
some people were "becausing" a lot to a subject, when in fact it counted the
becauses on the "buts," too.

Also, the design could be improved, but it's usable as it is.

P.S: Gosh, my sentence is confusing.

------
kybernetikos
Love this.

Is there already a community/location for meta discussions? Maybe a
Slack/Discord/Discourse/irc something or other.

E.g. I would like the ability to say 'I need more evidence to accept this
premise', but I wouldn't want to just make a pull request if it's not
something the community wants.

The fallacies reported should all be linked to a thorough discussion of each,
and it should be possible to contest a fallacy report.

~~~
qznc
Maybe like this: [http://en.arguman.org/we-need-a-need-more-evidence-for-
this-...](http://en.arguman.org/we-need-a-need-more-evidence-for-this-premise-
option)

------
lars512
I love argument maps, they work much better than an essay form at trying to
capture the complex aspects of an argument. But, an additional editorial
aspect would be nice.

One problem I see here is people wrapping too many ideas into a single
premise, which then makes arguing for or against it too difficult. Each should
really be as small and isolated as possible.

------
fatiherikli
Argument mapping is producing "boxes and arrows" diagrams of reasoning,
especially complex arguments and debates. Argument mapping improves our
ability to articulate, comprehend and communicate reasoning, thereby promoting
critical thinking.

You can think argument mappings as visual hierarchy mappings.

Arguman.org’s aim is arguments to be mapped successfully by many users.

~~~
fatiherikli
Also arguman's source code is available on github:

[http://github.com/arguman/arguman.org](http://github.com/arguman/arguman.org)

------
arisAlexis
Do perfectly rational highly intelligent agents argue or is it our
imperfection that needs such a tool? If yes then can people really change
their minds after discussing like this?

(I do think its a great platform)

~~~
JadeNB
I think that the answer to the first part of your question is 'yes'. Just
imagine two (perfectly rational and highly intelligent) mathematicians
debating the truth of an unknown result—say, the Riemann hypothesis. I suppose
if you add the caveat 'omniscient', then the need to argue goes away.

~~~
eru
They argue, but they agree surely and quickly. (See "Are Disagreements
Honest?"
[https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/deceive.pdf](https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/deceive.pdf))

~~~
arisAlexis
thank you for posting these links. they have provided me with mind expanding
knowledge

~~~
arisAlexis
I published this blog post after reading maybe you would find it interesting
to disagree about :)

~~~
eru
Which blog post? Perhaps you want to post a link to it?

~~~
arisAlexis
[https://medium.com/@arisAlexis/pragmatic-problems-with-
disag...](https://medium.com/@arisAlexis/pragmatic-problems-with-
disagreements-8dcf89c4b925#.5gs298pkp)

sorry!

------
graphql-tlc
When will the arguments be formally-verified from sets of axioms rather than
just human-verified (which is prone to error, politics and groupthink).

~~~
leni536
We will never agree on the set of axioms.

~~~
qznc
You can still verify deductions, even if you disagree with the axioms.

------
zbyte64
Fine example of the platform's weakness: [http://en.arguman.org/there-is-no-
such-thing-as-global-warmi...](http://en.arguman.org/there-is-no-such-thing-
as-global-warming)

Inject enough irrelevant counterarguments and you get the same quasi-
controversy with the same amount of confusion for the layman.

~~~
planfaster
That's a strength. I didn't know about the Plasma argument and it looks like a
good one.

Someone is yet to post a good refutation to it there.

The weakness is in allowing those who disagree to throw a tantrum, be
impolite, use curse words, and attack other participants, such as this post:

"What the fuck has this to do with global warming?? electric currents and your
shitty plasma have nothing to do with this, literally 99% of your spam quotes
are irrelevant quotes"

When it's obvious from the "spam" arguments posted that the Earth sits within
a system that is 99% plasma.

The problem with this system is that you will get many participants Skissor
(author of the above-quoted pearl) asking for arguments to be censored or
removed. This is the major problem that forums everywhere have yet to solve -
when enough of the majority deem the minority's point of view as "trolling" as
asks that it be censored, there is no real debate.

------
leni536
This really looks interesting, I really like its simplicity. However it feels
like that the arguments should either support the given statement or its
converse. I think there should be other options too. As a physicist I would
argue that the very statement "The universe is a simulation." is non-
falsifiable, therefore it's not something we should argue about. There could
be other problems with statements too, like "the GPL is freer than the BSD
licence" where there is no consensus on the definition of free.

It would be nice if one could source other statements, it could integrate with
it quite well.

------
leavjenn
Great project.

A UI suggestion: how about make the list view in HN nested comment style? If
an argument gets too much items (like this one: [http://en.arguman.org/there-
is-no-such-thing-as-global-warmi...](http://en.arguman.org/there-is-no-such-
thing-as-global-warming)), it's a little mess in tree view. The list view
style is more clear, but you have to click each item to see the sub-item. How
aout make them nested with indentations? So one can see all items in one
place.

------
voaie
When will different branches get merged? ;) It is great to build the mind map
and log the history just like `git` does. But people still need rooms to
discuss more.

~~~
tunavargi
We discussed about rooms, or maybe a structure like sub-arguments. it's in our
roadmap.

------
grizzles
I built something like this back in the day. It looks like it's lacking a
weighing mechanism. This
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_logic))
is a good formalized framework to use for that, if the authors are here
reading along.

------
pentestercrab
Self-referential argument can be found here [1].

[1] [http://en.arguman.org/this-argument-has-the-same-total-
count...](http://en.arguman.org/this-argument-has-the-same-total-count-for-
each-premise-type-however-but-and-because)

------
bobcostas55
Any chance of releasing the source? I'd love to be able to self-host this...

~~~
joshschreuder
Looks like it's up here:
[https://github.com/arguman/arguman.org](https://github.com/arguman/arguman.org)

No idea how to install it, but take a look :)

------
eadz
Enterprise Edition? How would something like this go down at work?

------
tengwar
I've meant to do something like this for a long time.

~~~
kybernetikos
Me too. It's always a mix of feelings when you see a project that you wanted
to do. The truth is though, I was probably never going to get to it...

I like this implementation though. Really cool.

------
georgebonnr
[http://en.arguman.org/your-argument-is-invalid](http://en.arguman.org/your-
argument-is-invalid)

------
joslin01
There should be a wikipedia for these. Argupedia.

------
qznc
I think there might be a market for a "Stackoverflow for opinions".

~~~
dronehire
Isn't that Quora?

------
ionforce
I think this idea is a great in the nerd-good sense, as in I've thought of
this myself many times...

But ultimately I wonder if it will be useful or really gain traction.

Maybe you can see it with really popular, hot questions, and get some social
media buzz.

