Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Connecting the Dots...
EXCELLENT, Aldo!!! (01)
I, too, put a lot of stock in what your Iraqi-expatriate
colleague has to say. They point to a convergence of goals,
but a disagreement over methods. The question that next
pops up in my mind is how, in a non-democratic system,
can such change be achieved non-violently? (02)
I've *got* to read up on the Magna Carta. That's one of the
few cases where the citizenry induced change without revolt.
(The only "enlightened societies" I can think of were let
by benevolent czars, and the like.) (03)
Perhaps there are useful lessons in models like that one.
(Paul pointed me to a number of resources, too, that I'll
get to next week.) (04)
Multiple-linking is a necessity, imho. But the linking has
to be possible after-the-fact. (05)
Aldo de Moor wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Eric Armstrong wrote:
> > Good, John. You've raised some good issues.
> > I need an IBIS system to keep track of them
> > all, and a few experts to weigh in on some
> > of them.
> To keep this discussion somewhat related to the theme of the list, I would
> like to raise the problem of how to link arguments. Let's say I have the
> following arguments:
> - Launching a war to prevent weapons of mass destruction from being used,
> will result in exactly the opposite effect: (1) they will be used by
> Hussain when he is with his back against the wall or (2) for revenge, will
> be transferred to terrorist groups who can deliver them anywhere, anytime.
> - I have an Iraqi colleague who went into exile in the Netherlands ten
> years ago. He hasn't seen his family back home since. I asked him about
> his opinion. Although regime change is what everybody desperately wants,
> the instrument of war is wrong, in his eyes. It's going to create
> unimaginable further suffering for the Iraqi population (and - forced -
> draft military), while it is very unclear if anything substantial would
> change afterwards. As I consider this victim of the regime a credible
> source, his opinion counts heavily for me.
> It is clear that these arguments are CON many of Eric's positions or
> arguments. Yet at the same time, they could reinforce (PRO) many of John's
> arguments, which themselves are CON Eric's.
> I1 -> P1 + A1 - A3
> - A2 + A3
> -> P2 ...
> I1 = "the issue of going to war with Iraq"
> P1 = "let's do it!"
> P2 = "forget it!"
> A1 = "One of Eric's arguments in favour of P1"
> A2 = "One of John's arguments against P1"
> A3 = "One of my arguments against P1"
> My questions:
> - Arguments can often be linked PRO or CON only one other position or
> argument in many IBIS methods and tools. Are there any IBIS approaches in
> which a new argument node can be linked to multiple other positions or
> - If so, is this multiple linking ad hoc or systematic in the sense of
> leaving it to the authors' initiative to create multiple links, or
> guiding/forcing authors to decide on multiple possible links for their
> argument? Can others than the authors themselves add new links?
> - What criteria can be used to assess whether an argument should be
> positioned to weaken an argument node with which it disagrees, or
> strengthen an argument with which it is in line?
> - Assume an argument can be linked to multiple other positions or argument
> nodes. Follow-up discussion often originates from one thread to which the
> node is linked, while it doesn't make sense from the perspective from
> another thread of which this node is part. How to manage this complexity?
> ---/// e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
> IN|F/OLAB phone +31-13-4662914/3020, fax +31-13-4663069
> |/// home page: http://infolab.uvt.nl/people/ademoor
> Dr. Aldo de Moor
> Infolab, Dept. of Information Systems and Management - Tilburg University
> PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands
> ========================================================================== (06)