|
|
| (9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| <accesscontrol>members of projects</accesscontrol>
| | {{method|modrator=Mikko Pohjola |
| | | | reference = {{publication |
| {{method}} | | | authors = Mikko V. Pohjola, Jouni T. Tuomisto |
| | | page = Dealing with disputes |
| | | explanation = |
| | | publishingyear = 2010 |
| | | urn = |
| | | elsewhere = |
| | }} |
| | }} |
|
| |
|
| '''Dispute''' is a difference in opinion about a state of the world, or the preferability of a state of the world. | | '''Dispute''' is a difference in opinion about a state of the world, or the preferability of a state of the world. |
| Line 39: |
Line 46: |
|
| |
|
| {{Discussion | | {{Discussion |
| |Dispute = It is possible to calculate variable results in the [[Help:Collaborative workspace|collaborative workspace]]. | | |Statements = It is possible to calculate variable results in the [[Help:Collaborative workspace|collaborative workspace]]. |
| |Outcome = Accepted. | | |Resolution = Accepted. |
| |Argumentation = | | |Argumentation = |
| {{attack invalid|#1: |not part of scoping (and not very feasible either I think...)|--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 16:45, 15 March 2007 (EET)}} <br> | | {{attack invalid|1 |not part of scoping (and not very feasible either I think...)|--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 16:45, 15 March 2007 (EET)}} <br> |
| :{{attack|#3: |At least some (simple) common calculation methods that nearly everyone uses might be provided. If they are provided directly in the scoping diagram (by clicking on the variables) or not may be decided later.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EET)}} | | :{{attack|3 |At least some (simple) common calculation methods that nearly everyone uses might be provided. If they are provided directly in the scoping diagram (by clicking on the variables) or not may be decided later.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EET)}} |
| {{defend|#2: |It is not directly a part of the scoping, but it puts demands on the scoping tool if this should be possible to do. As for the feasibility I dont know, but KTL are already doing something like this with the wikimedia <-> analytica tool|--[[User:Sjur|Sjur]] 12:04, 16 March 2007 (EET)}} | | {{defend|2 |It is not directly a part of the scoping, but it puts demands on the scoping tool if this should be possible to do. As for the feasibility I dont know, but KTL are already doing something like this with the wikimedia <-> analytica tool|--[[User:Sjur|Sjur]] 12:04, 16 March 2007 (EET)}} |
| }} | | }} |
|
| |
|
| Line 76: |
Line 83: |
| <references/> | | <references/> |
|
| |
|
| [[category: important]]
| | ----- |
| '''Contributing to a discussion''' presents rules of discussion engagement and discussion format, as well rules for editing discussions.
| |
| | |
| Your contribution in the form of remarks or argumentative criticism on the content of the wikipages is most welcome. It can change the outcome of the integrated risk assessment; it will improve it and make the integrated risk assessment better understandable for decision makers and other stakeholders. The discussions will show the reasoning behind our work; it will indicate the objective and normative aspects in the risk assessment. In this way, decision makers and stakeholders in general can judge themselves whether they agree on our normative weighting. In order to obtain an orderly discussion it is appreciated if you follow the discussion rules and apply the discussion format.
| |
| | |
| '''Discussion rules'''
| |
| | |
| # Freedom of opinion. Everyone has the right to criticise or comment on the ''content'' of the wikipages.
| |
| # State your critique with supporting arguments or your comment or remarks under the tab ''discussion'' {{disclink|This is the discussion tab.}} and sign it.
| |
| # Comments, remarks, statements and argumentation must relate to the topic of the wikipage.
| |
| # Only statements made and arguments given can be attacked.
| |
| # Comments, remarks, statements and argumentation can NOT be redundant. They cannot be repeated.
| |
| # You are supposed to be committed to your statements, that is:
| |
| :: a) if someone doubts on your statement ({{comment| || }}), you must explain it (edit or defend {{defend| || }} ).
| |
| :: b) if someone attacks your statement ({{attack| || }}), you must defend it ({{defend| || }} ).
| |
| :: c) if someone doubts on your argument ({{comment| || }}), you should explain it (edit or defend {{defend| || }} ).
| |
| :: d) if someone attacks your argument ({{attack| || }} ), you should defend it ({{defend| || }} ).
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''Discussion format'''
| |
| | |
| '''BASIC DISCUSSION FORMAT:''' For discussing, the discussion format (Blue '''D''' in the toolbar on the ''edit'' tab) should be used. This is how the discussion format appears:
| |
| | |
| {{discussion
| |
| |Dispute= Add topic of discussion: This is either
| |
| ::* a single statement made in the wikipage text upon which someone cast doubt, or
| |
| ::* a statement made in the wikipage text and an opposing statement (thesis and anti-thesis)
| |
| |Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)
| |
| |Argumentation =
| |
| Add argumentation using attack-, defend- and comment buttons in the toolbar. Please be to the point and re-read your contribution first, before you store it.
| |
| | |
| {{comment|#(number x): |The blue horizontal line represents the comment button. It yields this blue layout, which is used for '''comments''' and '''remarks'''.| }}
| |
| | |
| {{defend|#(number x): |This green arrow represents a '''defending argument'''.| }}
| |
| | |
| {{attack|#(number x): |This red arrow represents an '''offending argument'''. | }}
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| Furthermore:
| |
| * If you agree with an argument made by others, you can place your signature (in the toolbar) under the argument.
| |
| * Arguments may be edited or restructured. However, if there are signatures of other people, only minor edits are allowed without their explicit acceptance.
| |
| * If agreement is reached, i.e. the dispute is settled or resolved, the result can be stated at '''outcome'''.
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''N.B.''' In order to contribute to the discussion you should be logged in. If you have not yet a user account, you can make one.
| |
| | |
| ---- | |
| | |
| | |
| '''ARGUMENTATION TYPE INDICATION:''' It is recommended that you indicate your argument type, so that readers (decision makers) can see at onces whether the argument is '''theoretical''' (T), '''ethical''' (E) or '''practical''' (P). Theoretical arguments are arguments that can be falsified (even after discussion closure). Ethical arguments are arguments based on ethics. Practical arguments are situation specific arguments. Notation examples:
| |
| | |
| : {{attack|#(7 E): |This is an example of the notation of an offending ethical argument.| }}
| |
| | |
| : {{defend|#(8 T): |This is an example of the notation of a defending theoretical argument.| }}
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| '''ARGUMENTATION STRUCTURE:''' If you use '''coordinative arguments'''*, it is recommended that you use this notation:
| |
| | |
| :{{defend|#(3 P): |(3.1) We have no capacity for further research. '''AND''' (3.2.) There is no budget to outsource research.| }}
| |
| | |
| If you use '''subordinative argumentation'''**, it is recommended that you use this notation:
| |
| | |
| :{{defend|#(4 P): |We have no time for further research on this topic.| }}
| |
| :: {{defend|#(5 P): |''Because'' there is other research to be done.| }}
| |
| ::: {{defend|#(6 P): |''Because'' the results of that research have to be included into the report.| }}
| |
| | |
| The purpose of the numbers is to make it easier to refer to a specific argument. The numbers are simply running numbers and they do not show a position in the argumentation thread. If you add an argument between the two other ones, the arguments do not show up in numerical order. This is OK. However with coordinative arguments, sub-numbering is used because only the arguments together make a whole rational argument. Alone these arguments would not hold against rational criticism.
| |
| | |
| : *Coordinative argumentation is using complementing arguments, that are mutual dependent for the defense of/attack on the statement.
| |
| : ** Subordinative argumentation is using arguments to support arguments.
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''Editing discussions'''
| |
| | |
| * In principle everyone can edit a discussion.
| |
| * If you have initiated a discussion, it is expected that you also take care of the discussion editing.
| |
| * It is polite to inform the other discussion participants about changes (by placing a notification on their user page).
| |
| | |
| Rules for editing discussions
| |
| # Only minor changes can be made to arguments with signatures of other people. However, you can suggest improvements and ask the persons who signed the original argument if they agree.
| |
| # Valid arguments come first ( {{attack|# || }} or {{defend|# || }} ), invalidated arguments at the end ( {{attack_invalid|# || }} or {{defend_invalid|# || }} ) of the discussion. However, the hierarchy (threads) of argumentation must be maintained.
| |
| # You cannot simply remove arguments that are irrelevant within their context. This is what you can do instead:
| |
| #: a) You can attack the argument with a relevance argument. If you are right, your argument will invalidate the original one.
| |
| #: b) You can cut and paste the argument into a relevant discussion. Please, write a comment on the original argument location describing what was moved, why the argument was moved (you must be able to show the arguments irrelevance), and to where it was moved (add a link to the new page).
| |
| | |
| '''Related pages'''
| |
|
| |
|
| * [[:en:Pragma-dialectics Pragma-dialectical argumentation theory]]
| | Some outdated, yet interesting considerations e.g. on types of arguments, discussion manners, and discussion practices archived to [http://en.opasnet.org/en-opwiki/index.php?title=Dealing_with_disputes&oldid=5987], [http://en.opasnet.org/en-opwiki/index.php?title=Discussion&oldid=8721] and [http://en.opasnet.org/en-opwiki/index.php?title=Help:Argumentation&oldid=5887] |
| | [[Category:THL publications 2009]] |
| | [[Category:THL publications 2010]] |
Dispute is a difference in opinion about a state of the world, or the preferability of a state of the world.
Purpose
When a diverse group of contributors participate in making a risk assessment, it is obvious that disputes may arise. One of the most instructive features of risk assessment is to understand both these disputes and the reasons why a particular outcome occurs. The risk assessment method must include guidance to deal with disputes, find resolutions and document the choices made so that they can be defended afterwards. Argumentation theory offers a basis for these methods.
Structure of the process
Input format
Procedure
Formal argumentation (according to the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory [1]) is used as the primary means to describe and resolve any disputes about scientific or valuation issues within the assessment. In traditional risk assessments, there is guidance to describe major disputes, but there are no structural rules for this. In addition, many disputes are (implicitly) resolved using conventions without challenging the foundations of the convention. The new method attempts to achieve more in dealing with disputes.
Van Eemeren and Grootendorst have operationalised the dispute resolving problem in the following way: "When should I, as a rational critic who judges reasonably, regard an argument as acceptable?" [1] Their answer is, very briefly, that disputes are solved using formal argumentation. The proponent and opponent of a statement can give arguments supporting their own statement (or other arguments) or attacking the other discussant's statement or arguments. There are certain criteria that each argument must fulfil, such as rationality and relevance. The dispute is resolved when one discussant is able to base his/her argumentation on arguments that both discussants agree on.
The structure of a discussion has three parts:
- Dispute (what are the conflicting statements?)
- Argumentation (a hierarchical thread of arguments related to the statements)
- Outcome (the statements that remain valid after the discussion)
|
Possible arguments include
- ⇤--#1:: . an attack against another argument (or statement) --Jouni 14:30, 31 August 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ←--#2:: . a defence of an argument --Jouni 14:30, 31 August 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
- ----#3:: . a comment --Jouni 14:30, 31 August 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
An argument must always be signed. Otherwise, it is not valid.
|
An example of a resolved dispute
Can the collaborative workspace calculate?
How to read discussions
| Fact discussion: .
|
| Opening statement: It is possible to calculate variable results in the collaborative workspace.
Closing statement: Accepted.
(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
|
Argumentation:
⇤--1: . not part of scoping (and not very feasible either I think...) --Anne.knol 16:45, 15 March 2007 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ⇤--3: . At least some (simple) common calculation methods that nearly everyone uses might be provided. If they are provided directly in the scoping diagram (by clicking on the variables) or not may be decided later. --Alexandra Kuhn 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
←--2: . It is not directly a part of the scoping, but it puts demands on the scoping tool if this should be possible to do. As for the feasibility I dont know, but KTL are already doing something like this with the wikimedia <-> analytica tool --Sjur 12:04, 16 March 2007 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|
Management
Output format
Rationale
The theoretical background referred to here is the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation theory, also known as the Amsterdam school of argumentation, developed by Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst from the University of Amsterdam. Only the main aspects of the theory in this scope are presented here and a more detailed and thorough representation of the theory can be found from e.g. van Eemeren, Grootendosrt, Henkemans: Argumentation - Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., 2002. The view presented here (as well as pragma-dialectics itself) also builds on critical rationalism as philosophical basis.
Traditionally the main objective of the pragma-dialectical approach is to resolve a difference of opinion by means of argumentative discourse. Critical rationalism in practice means that there are no absolute truths, so everything can be questioned and standpoints are always accepted only as temporarily and they can be discarded or changed if better/improved ones are found.
Pragma-dialectical argumentation can also be seen as a means for knowledge production, i.e. to bridge the gap between current knowledge base and the needed knowledge e.g. within a group. From the point of view of environmental health risk assessment, this is probably the most useful aspect of using argumentation in risk assessments. Argumenting for and against is used as a means to explore the validity, acceptability and correctness of the central standpoints/statements in focus. Accordingly the standpoints/statements are refined, reformulated, discarded etc. as appears necessary along the argumentative discourse.
The pragma-dialectical argumentation theory presents an ideal case that always differs from real live implications of argumentation. Nevertheless the theory can well be used in making the argumentation schemes and especially the strengths/weaknesses of argumentation explicit. It thus offers a way of improving the analysis and evaluation of real-life argumentation and improves argumentative presentation. It does not however guarantee exact definite results, but is always situation and context specific and easily affected by the view taken by the analyst/evaluator/presenter.
Basic building blocks of argumentation
The essential terminology in relation to our uses of the theory that requires some explanantion is explained here.
- Protagonist: The party that expresses a standpoint and is ready to defend that standpoint with arguments. The protagonist bears the burden of proof, i.e. is obliged to defend his/her standpoint by argument(s) in order to have his/her standpoint accepted.
- Antagonist: The party that expresses doubts and/or counterarguments on the standpoint expressed by the protagonist. Note that the antagonist does not need to express an opposing standpoint to question the protagonists standpoint, also expressing a doubt towards it is enough.
- Standpoint: A statement expressed by the protagonist, representing his/her view on some matter. Standpoint is the focal point of an agumentative discussion. Standpoints can be positive or negative and defending them means to justify or refute the standpoint respectively.
- Argument: A defensive or attacking expression in relation to the standpoint or another argument. Defensive arguments are expressed by the protagonist(s) and attacking arguments are expressed by the antagonist(s).
- Premise: Assumption presumed true within the argumentative discourse at hand. Premises form the basis and the background of the discourse. Can be explified or left implicit, but those premises that are likely to be perceived differently by the protagonist and the antagonist should be made explicit and agreed on before starting an argumentation.
See also
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Some outdated, yet interesting considerations e.g. on types of arguments, discussion manners, and discussion practices archived to [2], [3] and [4]