Discussion: Difference between revisions
(eracedu template added) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:THL publications 2009]] | |||
[[Category:THL publications 2010]] | |||
[[op_fi:Keskustelu]] | |||
[[Category:Universal object]] | [[Category:Universal object]] | ||
{{encyclopedia|moderator = Jouni | {{encyclopedia|moderator = Jouni | ||
| Line 60: | Line 63: | ||
* [[:Category:Closed discussions|Closed discussions]] | * [[:Category:Closed discussions|Closed discussions]] | ||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragma-dialectics Pragma-dialectical argumentation theory] | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragma-dialectics Pragma-dialectical argumentation theory] | ||
[[ | * [[:op_fi:Keskustelu:Keskustelu|Keskustelu:Keskustelu]] some more guidance in Finnish Opasnet | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 14:45, 2 March 2012
This page is a encyclopedia article.
The page identifier is Op_en2382 |
|---|
| Moderator:Jouni (see all) |
|
|
| Upload data
|
<section begin=glossary />
- Discussion is a part of an attribute of a formally structured object. In discussion, anyone can raise any relevant points about the property that the attribute describes. Discussion is organised using the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory[1]. A discussion usually consists of three parts: 1) the statement(s); 2) the actual discussion, organised as hierarchical threads of arguments; and 3) the outcome of discussion. Once a discussion reaches an outcome, the outcome should be accordingly portrayed within the object description.
<section end=glossary />
An example of a discussion in the formal structure
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Statements about a topic.
Closing statement: Outcome of the discussion. (Resolved, i.e., a closing statement has been found and updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
⇤--1: . This argument attacks the statement. Arguments always point to one level up in the hierarchy. --Jouni 17:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
|
How to discuss
Open collaboration embraces participation, in particular deliberative participation. Therefore all contributions in the form of remarks or argumentative criticism on the content of the assessments, variables, methods as well as other content are most welcome. The contributions can change the outcome of the assessments by improving their information content and making it better understandable for decision makers, stakeholders and public. Documented discussions also show the reasoning behind the work done in assessments making it possible for decision makers, stakeholders and public to judge for themselves whether they agree with the reasoning behind the outcomes. In order to obtain an orderly discussion, rules and format for discussion in open collaboration have been created building on pragma-dialectics, a systematic theory of argumentation.
Discussion has a central role in the collaborative process of formulating questions, developing hypotheses as answers to these questions, and improving these hypotheses through challenges and corresponding corrections. When a diverse group of contributors participate in an assessment, it is obvious that disputes may arise. Formal argumentation offers a solution also to deal with the disputes. In collaborative assessments every information object, and every part of these objects, is subject to open criticism according to the following rules:
- Freedom of opinion. Everyone has the right to criticise the content of an assessment.
- Critique with supporting arguments or comment or remarks is stated in connection to what is being criticized
- Comments, remarks, statements and argumentation must be relevant to the issue that they relate to.
- Only statements made and arguments given can be attacked.
- Comments, remarks, statements and argumentation can NOT be redundant. They cannot be repeated.
- The one who states criticism is supposed to be committed to the statements, that is:
- a) if someone doubts the statement, one must explain it.
- b) if someone attacks the statement, one must defend it.
- c) if someone doubts an argument, one must explain it.
- d) if someone attacks an argument, one must defend it.
A discussion has three parts:
- A statement or a list of conflicting statements relevant to the information object it relates to. In a case where only one statement is presented, there is always an implicit, conflicting statement that the presented statement is not acceptable.
- Argumentation, containing the actual discussion and organised as hierarchical threads of arguments. Each argument is either an attack against or a defence for an argument or a statement. Each argument is valid unless it has no proponents (a discussant promoting the argument) or it is attacked by a valid argument. Also neutral comments can be used for asking or offering clarification. Comments do not affect the validity of the target argument.
- Outcome of the discussion. Outcome may be such that a) one of the statements is accepted, b) one of the statements is accepted with some modifications, or c) two or more statements still remain valid after the discussion; thus, an outcome does not necessarily mean that the disputes were resolved. When a discussion reaches an outcome, it actually means that the outcome is incorporated into the actual information content of the particular object the discussion related to. It should be noted that outcomes are always temporary and discussions can be opened again with new arguments.
See also
- Discussion structure
- Discussion method
- Dealing with disputes
- Open discussions
- Closed discussions
- Pragma-dialectical argumentation theory
- Keskustelu:Keskustelu some more guidance in Finnish Opasnet
References
- ↑ Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Related files
<mfanonymousfilelist></mfanonymousfilelist>
|
|