[HN Gopher] Argdown - a simple syntax for complex argumentation
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Argdown - a simple syntax for complex argumentation
        
       Author : jka
       Score  : 58 points
       Date   : 2021-02-14 15:52 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (argdown.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (argdown.org)
        
       | JasonFruit wrote:
       | I think the problem with most arguments isn't visual
       | presentation, but failures of reasoning and expression. If a set
       | of arguments requires careful graphic design to be
       | comprehensible, it probably needs to be rethought or better
       | expressed.
        
         | Veen wrote:
         | Clear and simple visual presentation often reveals errors of
         | reasoning, just as obscure and elaborate presentation hides
         | them.
        
       | cwmoore wrote:
       | I see this as a way to engage with one's own thought rather than
       | to replace, improve, or guardrail debate generally, and the
       | textual syntax to visualization path has potential to catch on
       | where something like D3 or graphviz have limited appeal.
       | 
       | As a visual artist who finds that insights beyond the limits of
       | language are often as valid and interesting as those within it,
       | the opportunity to state a case, and then see and engage it in
       | another visual form is an exciting use case for HCI.
        
       | JosefThorne wrote:
       | Nice, I've always wanted something like this. I am working on a
       | little website project for structured discourse and might try to
       | integrate this tool. Cheers!
        
       | jka wrote:
       | Previous HN discussion:
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20475865
        
       | wheybags wrote:
       | I got excited thinking this was going to be a tool for expressing
       | grammars for arguments to command line tools in a parseable
       | format, maybe even with a code generator attached.
        
         | jka wrote:
         | What would you use tools like those for, out of interest?
        
       | legulere wrote:
       | Something more formal:
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogical_logic
        
       | hippira wrote:
       | I'm reading Plato and this might look fun to try out.
        
       | cardoni wrote:
       | Cute idea. I like the idea of markdown solving for the complexity
       | of convincing, logical argument.
        
       | finnjohnsen2 wrote:
       | Sorry, OT. But this makes me think of my conclusion made a few
       | years ago; we are not rational beings.
       | 
       | We're swamped with biases, and emotion tends to lead the
       | direction to where we seek our "facts". And it sounds like I mean
       | it politically. But I don't. This feature is overwheling with us
       | except for in the pure natural and measurable sciences. 2+2=4,
       | done. But it ends there when it comes to rational decision making
       | based on objective arguments.
       | 
       | Everything you do privately, what phone you buy, car, where you
       | live, how you pick your spouse, strategy for kids and all the
       | other important things. Also at work, who you hire, where you
       | decide to work, how you rate your colleague, technologies,
       | business strategy, relationship with your boss.
       | 
       | I've almost given up on rational argumentation and objective
       | truth - and have identified the emotional and irrational as being
       | the true battleground for decision making in our existence.
       | 
       | Rant over. Sorry. Argdown is great im sure :D
        
         | jka wrote:
         | No apology necessary :) When and where formalization of debate
         | could be helpful -- or not -- is also worth talking about.
         | 
         | I think there's an opportunity to add diagrammatic structure to
         | make debate more understandable and accessible, while reducing
         | distractions and (potentially time-wasteful) repetition of
         | talking points.
         | 
         | It's part of a broader idea: take an important topic, and
         | imagine all the ways that bad actors might try to disrupt
         | debate about that. Then try to figure out how to build a
         | discussion system that is resilient against those efforts,
         | while remaining participatory.
         | 
         | (I'd agree I don't think any file format or system will let us
         | reach rationality or objective truth any time soon - if they're
         | even achieable goals - but they could help groups make
         | decisions and debug prior mistakes and misunderstandings)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-02-14 23:01 UTC)