Discussion: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(change of names of parts)
(variable part moved to Discussion structure, instruction part moved from Welcome to Opasnet and edited)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{variable|Universal object}}
[[Category:Universal object]]
{{encyclopedia|moderator = [[User:Jouni|Jouni]]}}
[[Category:Glossary term]]
[[Category:Glossary term]]
<section begin=glossary />
<section begin=glossary />
Line 5: Line 6:
<section end=glossary />
<section end=glossary />


==Scope==
This page presents rules of discussion engagement and discussion format, as well rules for editing discussions.


;Research question about the structure of a discussion: What is a structure for a discussion about an attribute such that it
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.
:* is applicable to any discussion about any attribute in an assessment,
:* can be applied both ''a priori'' (to structure a discussion to be held) and ''a posteriori'' (to restructure a discussion already held),
:* complies with the [[:en:pragma-dialectics|pragma-dialectics]].


==Definition==
==Discussion rules==


The structure of the discussion follows the principles of the pragma-dialectics.<ref name="pragmadial"/>{{reslink|Names of the discussion parts}}
# 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:


==Result==
: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| || }} ).


The discussion has four parts:
===Discussion format===
* The explication of a dispute. It consists of two or more conflicting '''statements''', each of which is promoted by a discussant. If only one statement is described, there is always another, implicit statement that the first statement is not true.
* The '''argumentation''', which contains the actual discussion and is organised as hierarchical threads of arguments. Each argument is either an attack against or a defence for another argument or original statement. As arguments always point to another argument, they form a hierarchical thread structure. It is also possible to use coordinative arguments where two or more arguments together act like one argument. Each argument is valid unless it has no proponents (a discussant promoting the argument) or it is attacked by a valid argument. In addition to attacks and defences, also comments can be used for asking or offering clarification; comments do not affect the validity of the target argument.
* The '''resolution''', which is found when only one of the original statements remains valid. The contents of the resolutions is transferred to the actual contents of the [[attribute]].
* The '''[[nugget]]s''', which are mainly used in ''a posteriori'' discussions. Nuggets are freely structured text containing the original discussion, from which the actual argumentation is then restructured. A nugget cannot be changed afterwards, and in this respect it is a different kind of contribution than all other parts in [[open assessment]].


====References====
'''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:


<references/>
{{discussion
|statements = 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)
|resolution =
|Argumentation =
{{comment|1|The blue horizontal line represents the comment button. It yields this blue layout, which is used for '''comments''' and '''remarks'''.| }}
:{{defend|2|This green arrow represents a '''defending argument'''.| }}
:{{attack|3|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 '''resolution'''.
 
'''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.
 
----
 
===Argument types===
 
It is recommended that you indicate your argument type, so that readers (decision makers) can see at once whether the argument is '''theoretical''' (T), '''ethical''' (E) or '''practical''' (P). Theoretical arguments are arguments that can be falsified with scientific information. Ethical arguments are arguments based on ethics. Practical arguments are situation specific arguments. These are arguments based on the content. In addition, there may be arguments about the '''relevance''' (R). Relevance means that an argument is useful and in a right place in its context in the discussion. 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===
 
'''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.
 
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 sequential 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.
 
===Editing discussions===
 
# Anyone can edit a discussion.
# If you have initiated a discussion, it is expected that you act as [[moderator]] for the discussion.
# It is polite to inform the other discussion participants about changes (by placing a notification on their user page).
# 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.
# On a particular level of argumentation, valid threads come first ( {{attack|# || }} or {{defend|# || }} ), invalidated threads at the end ( {{attack_invalid|# || }} or {{defend_invalid|# || }} ) of the discussion.
# 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).
 
==See also==
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragma-dialectics Pragma-dialectical argumentation theory]

Revision as of 05:02, 11 April 2009


<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 explication of a dispute; 2) the actual discussion, which is organised as hierarchical threads of arguments; and 3) the resolution.

<section end=glossary />

This page 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

  1. Freedom of opinion. Everyone has the right to criticise or comment on the content of the wikipages.
  2. State your critique with supporting arguments or your comment or remarks under the tab discussion D↷ and sign it.
  3. Comments, remarks, statements and argumentation must relate to the topic of the wikipage.
  4. Only statements made and arguments given can be attacked.
  5. Comments, remarks, statements and argumentation can NOT be redundant. They cannot be repeated.
  6. 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 (edit or defend ←--': . (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 (edit or defend ←--': . (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:

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: 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)

Closing statement: Resolution not yet found.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

----1: . 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)

←--2: . This green arrow represents a defending argument. (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
⇤--3: . 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 resolution.

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.

Argument types

It is recommended that you indicate your argument type, so that readers (decision makers) can see at once whether the argument is theoretical (T), ethical (E) or practical (P). Theoretical arguments are arguments that can be falsified with scientific information. Ethical arguments are arguments based on ethics. Practical arguments are situation specific arguments. These are arguments based on the content. In addition, there may be arguments about the relevance (R). Relevance means that an argument is useful and in a right place in its context in the discussion. 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

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.

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)
←--5 P: . Because there is other research to be done. (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
←--6 P: . Because the results of that research have to be included into the report. (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

The purpose of the numbers is to make it easier to refer to a specific argument. The numbers are simply sequential 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.

Editing discussions

  1. Anyone can edit a discussion.
  2. If you have initiated a discussion, it is expected that you act as moderator for the discussion.
  3. It is polite to inform the other discussion participants about changes (by placing a notification on their user page).
  4. 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.
  5. On a particular level of argumentation, valid threads come first ( ⇤--#: . (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) or ←--#: . (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ), invalidated threads at the end ( ⇤--#: . (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) or ←--#: . (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ) of the discussion.
  6. 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).

See also

  1. ↑ Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=Discussion&oldid=8721"