Help:Argumentation: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Juha Villman (talk | contribs) (thanks Sjuurd) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This page presents rules of discussion engagement and discussion format. | |||
Your contribution in the form of remarks or argumentative criticism on the content of the wikipages is most welcome. It will be used to make the integrated risk assessment understandable for decision makers. 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 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 ({{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 ({{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|#(4.1): |''Because'' there is other research to be done.| }} | |||
::: {{defend|#(4.1.1): |''Because'' the results of that research have to be included into the report.| }} | |||
: *Coordinative argumentation is using complementing arguments, that are mutual dependent for the defense/attack of the statement. | |||
: ** Subordinative argumentation is using arguments to support arguments. | |||
Revision as of 10:42, 18 June 2007
This page presents rules of discussion engagement and discussion format.
Your contribution in the form of remarks or argumentative criticism on the content of the wikipages is most welcome. It will be used to make the integrated risk assessment understandable for decision makers. 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 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 D↷ 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 (----': . (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)), you must explain it (←--': . (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ).
- b) if someone attacks your statement (⇤--': . (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)), you must defend it (←--': . (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ).
- c) if someone doubts on your argument (----': . (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)), you should explain it (←--': . (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ).
- d) if someone attacks your argument (⇤--': . (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ), you should defend it (←--': . (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ).
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:
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| 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.
|
----#(number x):: . The blue horizontal line represents the comment button. It yields this blue layout, which is used for comments and remarks. (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
←--#(number x):: . This green arrow represents a defending argument. (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
⇤--#(number x):: . This red arrow represents an offending argument. (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
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:
- ⇤--#(7 E):: . This is an example of the notation of an offending ethical argument. (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ←--#(8 T):: . This is an example of the notation of a defending theoretical argument. (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
ARGUMENTATION STRUCTURE:
If you use coordinative arguments*, it is recommended that you use this notation:
- ←--#(3 P):: . (3.1) We have no capacity for further research. AND (3.2.) There is no budget to outsource research. (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
If you use subordinative argumentation**, it is recommended that you use this notation:
- ←--#(4 P):: . We have no time for further research on this topic. (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
- *Coordinative argumentation is using complementing arguments, that are mutual dependent for the defense/attack of the statement.
- ** Subordinative argumentation is using arguments to support arguments.