The next step could be to annotate statements with a confidence (1-99%). Currently I see no way to weigh the arguments against each other.
Argdown, like Markdown for argument mapping
31–40 of 50 posts
Re: Argdown, like Markdown for argument mapping
#32From time to time, I see a tool to present a discussion as a tree with arguments for and against it.
Unless it is a school essay, arguments don't go that way.
It is usually harder to encompass what a node (an atomic fact) is and what a link is (it usually goes beyond "support" and "counter"). Very often, this structure is not a tree. Maybe a DAG with weighted edges, but if it were that straightforward - knowledge graphs would simply work.
Instead of rehashing the same tree approach, we should adopt something closer to an LLM-embedding approach - for a given statement, we should have "relevant statements" with an additional dimension if it supports, counters, expands, provides an example, and so on. In this case, it wouldn't even be a DAG.
Re: Argdown, like Markdown for argument mapping
#33Is there some reason this is all focused around yes/no questions or a single statement? Is it like a standard format that all topics can be reworded to? I'm wondering if this could this be used for something like comparing alternatives to solve a problem. In that case I'd expect the root to be a description of the problem, then alternatives, then pros-cons for those alternatives. I'd never heard of this at all before…
You can organize any number of alternatives as binary choices.
Re: Argdown, like Markdown for argument mapping
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
checkout http://docopt.org then
Whoah, that's a neat tool! I definitely need to implement this with my scripts. Thanks!
It's abandoned, and tbh it's more trouble than it's worth. It's far easier and more reliable to specify the CLI and have it generate the help text than the other way around. All major languages have good CLI parsing libraries (some in the stdlib itself, like Go and Python).
Re: Argdown, like Markdown for argument mapping
#35I might know nothing about debates, but in my impression you always make the diagram that does its job best. Argdown seems to constrain everything to its framework and forces the style of the output.
Also, Mermaid (https://mermaid.js.org/) exists.
Re: Argdown, like Markdown for argument mapping
#36Re: Argdown, like Markdown for argument mapping
#37Is there some reason this is all focused around yes/no questions or a single statement? Is it like a standard format that all topics can be reworded to? I'm wondering if this could this be used for something like comparing alternatives to solve a problem. In that case I'd expect the root to be a description of the problem, then alternatives, then pros-cons for those alternatives. I'd never heard of this at all before…
You can organize any number of alternatives as binary choices.
I believe that, but doesn't that make it much harder to read? Or are the organizational benefits worth it?
Edit: and I also don't see a way to do multiple arguments like that in a single document, unless you mean as a soft linkage.
Re: Argdown, like Markdown for argument mapping
#38From time to time, I see a tool to present a discussion as a tree with arguments for and against it. Unless it is a school essay, arguments don't go that way. It is usually harder to encompass what a node (an atomic fact) is and what a link is (it usually goes beyond "support" and "counter"). Very often, this structure is not a tree. Maybe a DAG with weighted edges, but if it were that straightforward - knowledge gra…
Love this is reasoning
Re: Argdown, like Markdown for argument mapping
#39Ha I thought it was a tool for managing complex args for command-line tools
Part of the kitchen sink that is rST: https://docutils.sourceforge.io/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtex...
Re: Argdown, like Markdown for argument mapping
#40Is there some reason this is all focused around yes/no questions or a single statement? Is it like a standard format that all topics can be reworded to? I'm wondering if this could this be used for something like comparing alternatives to solve a problem. In that case I'd expect the root to be a description of the problem, then alternatives, then pros-cons for those alternatives. I'd never heard of this at all before…
You can organize any number of alternatives as binary choices.
And in actually complex rhetoric, the discrete choices are typically phrased to benefit the one casting the argument as such. False Dilemma is still false even when it’s embedded in a larger tree.