Help:Argumentation
----#(number):: . This page should be fused to Discussion but not before the information structure article has been submitted. --Jouni 21:47, 5 July 2008 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
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
- 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 (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:
| 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)
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 ( ⇤--#: . (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) or ←--#: . (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ), invalidated arguments at the end ( ⇤--#: . (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) or ←--#: . (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ) 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, you argument will invalidate the original one.
- b) You can copy and past the argument in 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).
Restructuring free-structured discussions a posteriori
The structuring of an existing non-structured discussion into a formal argumentation is an issue that should be studied. The structure of a natural discussion is different than that of a formal argumentation. Often the hierarchy of argumentation is formed only after the discussion. Thus, you must either a) perform the discussion in a formal way (a priori) or b) develop methods to restructure the discussion into the argumentation structure. For b), there might be typical approaches that are efficient in the work. How are these found?
You should study existing discussions and practice the structuring. There should be a specific page where this method is discussed, e.g. Restructuring free-format discussions a posteriori. van Eemeren and other argumentation methodologists should be included in the discussion.