Universal Debating Project: Difference between revisions

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(50 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
=Description=
'''Basic Proposal by Robert Searle'''
'''Basic Proposal by Robert Searle'''






 
                                        Since the original article below was written there has been much interest in the phenomenon of Ai in society. This has obvious relevance relevance for the Precision Universal Debate, or PUD. A link below show a large number of relevant material on the subject, and may be of interest and value to the reader. RS
'''Towards the Global Development of an Open Democratic "Super Brain" using Structured Data'''








The Universal Debating Project (or UDP) is an extremely ambitious proposal for an ongoing programme in which "all", or most arguments for, or against any topic of human knowledge, or information could be presented in the clearest, and shortest possible form. In other words, an online "encyclopedia"(like Wikipedia) for the pros, and cons of any debate which could be continually updated in Real-Time on the internet. It would naturally adopt the Networking P2P approach, and hence, be an Open Source of structured data emanating from laymen, experts, NGOs, scholarly papers, popular articles, documentaries, web feeds, aggregators (ie.feed readers, or news readers), et al.
IMPORTANT Though the title of this p2p entry is the Universal Debating Project (at present) it has now been re-named the Precision Universal Debating Project,or PUDP or simply as a concept referred to as Precision Universal Debate or PUD sans the word Project which would indicate that it was somekind of a "movement"/ RS
Ofcourse, articles such as Wikipedia ones do try to present arguments for, and against particular subjects. But how "complete,"  and how unbiased are they? Moreover, they deal mainly with major arguments, and "minor" arguments may be excluded at times. In effect, what is needed is the most objective presentation of "all" possible pros, and cons on most, if not "all" kinds of human knowledge, and "controversy". The Universal Debating Project should be publicly seen as being a highly reliable, and a credible central global source of such structured data. Its aim is to achieve improved holistic reasoning, and greater objectivity. ''It should become of great practical value for educators, citizens, governments, NGOs, businesses, et al.''


=Discussion=
==The Problem of Complexity==
As the world becomes increasingly complex it becomes more, and more vital to....
a) ...reduce most, if not "all" information into clear, and manageable levels of data (ie. Text Simplification)...ideally using the least number of words..(similiar to "good" powerpoint presentations)
b) ...reduce "all" major, and "minor" arguments for, and against in the most lucid manner possible....again ideally using the least number of words...


c) ....a whole series of links to various sources would ofcourse be included at the click of a button...
'''Tackling the Information Explosion'''


Special editors could do the above work notably in connection with a), and b). This would mean that any pro, and con arguments which are repeated could be "quickly" reduced into the least numbers of words, and be free of emotional language. These could be emailed to those in a debate to see if the participants opinions are presented accurately.
Apart from Wikipedia mentioned earlier there are ofcourse on the internet any number of forums, and discussion groups.These are fine as far as they go. But as said before how complete are their arguments for, and against a certain topic? Naturally enough, such arguments are continually repeated again, and again. This is where the UDP becomes all-important.


A vital aspect of all this is that it should be possible for people to become "instant experts." In other words, they should be able to become reasonably "expert" in the shortest space of time in say some aspect  of economics, biology, or physics, or whatever. In other words, there is an element here of Anti-Credentialism in which essentially good arguments rely on good "objective" thinking rather than relying on the credibility of experts all the time.


Ofcourse, those who have formal qualifications, and training still play a vital role, but they must be prepared to submit their ideas, and discoveries onto the UDP. Thus, they could be "fully" scrutinised by other experts, and by the public without relevant credentials. This could all lead in certain instances to "quality" online global "brainstorming", or more precisely "brainwriting" sessions leading to "new" ideas that may have value in society, and the world. In other words, Collective Intelligence at work.


It should be added here too that technical subjects such as physics, and the processes involved in mathematics could be presented verbally, and clearly. In the latter instance, a individual may have little, or no training. But with "simple" verbal step by step presentations he, or she could reach levels of "mathematical understanding."


The UDP presents a truly holistic approach which could among other things be an aid in the process of personal decision-making. More importantly, it could ofcourse also play a growing, and practical role in the world.Indeed, it could ultimately become a central powerhouse of "all" knowledge, and thinking in a structured manner.
The Precision Universal Debating Project or PUDP is an extremely ambitious proposal for an ongoing programme in which "all", or most arguments for, or against any topic of human knowledge could be presented in the clearest, and shortest possible form. It would also include an online "encyclopedia"(like Wikipedia) for the pros, and cons of any debate which could be continually updated in Real-Time on the internet. It would naturally be something like the Networking P2P approach, and hence, be an Open Source of structured data emanating from laymen, experts, NGOs, scholarly papers, popular articles, documentaries, web feeds, aggregators, and other sources.  


==Basic Systemization of Presentation on the Universal Debating Project==
   
   
Ofcourse, articles such as those on Wikipedia do try to present arguments for, and against particular subjects. But how "complete,"  and how unbiased are they? Moreover, they deal probably with mainly major arguments, and to a lesser extent "minor" arguments. In effect, what is needed is the most objective presentation of "all" possible pros, and cons on most, if not "all" kinds of human knowledge.  
The presentation of structured data on various subjects should be simple. It could be like the ''Pros, and Cons, a Debaters Handbook'' edited by Trevor Sather which went through a number of editions since 1896. Here, two columns are presented, one of which is for pro arguments, and the other for con arguments. Each entry is numbered, and should be clear, and precise .....ideally once again using the least number of words possible to present a case.
 


An intriguing aspect of the Universal Debating Project is that we could have what is termed a "Rationality Count"(RC). This would be the electronic tracking of peoples decision-making processes for, and against a specific topic. This could give us valuable insight as to the degrees of rationality people may have. For instance, 2,000  people may select pro argument a for topic C via the internet. Then, a con argument b could be presented online for the same topic C, and 1,500 decide to agree with it, and ofcourse, press the right button on their computers to transmit their decision...and so on. We may well find interesting patterns if RCs are used. In other words, a "mapping out" of the "thinking processes" of participants in the UDP.  
Ideally, the Precision Universal Debating Project should be publicly seen as being the most reliable, and the most credible central global source of such structured data of its kind which could be continually checked upon by independent sources of data if necessary. It should also act as the most advanced, and "complete" online encyclopedia of its kind in the world. It would be similiar to debatepedia but far more advanced. Its aim ultimately is to achieve improved constructive reasoning, and greater holistic objectivity.It should also become of great practical value for educators, citizens, governments, NGOs, businesses, et al.  
If the "Global Brain", or Universal Debating Project were ever set up, its initial concern would probably be with major issues notably social matters, economics, politics, and climate change/global warming. A site could be set up, and it could even have a motto such as "Fair Thinking, Fair World".




Also, it should be added that it is as yet unclear how such a proposal could be funded. It could use the Wikipedia model, or maybe not.


=More Information=
   
   
Links.
'''Universal Text Simplification in a World of Increasing Complexity'''


The following list of links may have direct, and indirect relevance to the above p2pfoundation entry. Yet, they are worthy of inclusion here. They also give us an idea of the immensity of the subject of debating, rationality, and thinking......


As the world becomes increasingly complex it becomes more, and more vital to....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_and_Crooked_Thinking  A book by the parapsychologist Robert Thouless, and one in which he gave a "simplistic" presentation of the different forms of argument.
 
a) ...reduce most, if not "all" introductory information on a topic into clear, and manageable levels of data (ie. Text Simplification but not "oversimplification")...ideally using the least number of words..(similiar to notes, or "good" power point presentations, and as short comprehensive summaries consisting of one, or more paragraph). This ofcourse is the encyclopaedic dimension of PUD.  
There are naturally enough a number of debating "organizations" on the internet. However, the scale, and indeed, scope of the UDP is generally far greater, and "infinitely" comprehensive.
 
 
http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia%21
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
 
http://idebate.org/debatabase
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_brain
The UDP could play a "central" role in the Global Brain proposal
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_(summary)
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Applied_data_mining
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking
 
A key problem with policy making is that unforeseen consequences can often happen. Hence, the need for good thought through planning to reduce future problems. Such policy making could be aided with the structured data approach of the UDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy
 
http://p2pfoundation.net/Anti-Credentialism
 
http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Facilitation
This has a list of links of great interest
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy (The UDP could play a critical role in this)
   
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
b) ...reduce "all" major, and "minor" resulting arguments for, and against a topic in the most lucid manner possible....again ideally using the least number of words...This ofcourse is the pro, and con dimension of the PUDP.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
c) ....a whole series of links to various sources could naturally enough be included at the click of a button. Ofcourse, the relevant sentences in "all" cases could be highlighted.  


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_(philosophy)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Special editors (paid ideally)could do the above work notably in connection with a), and b). This would mean that any pro, and con arguments which are repeated could be "quickly" reduced into the least number of words, and be free of emotive language. These could be emailed to those in a debate to see if the participants opinions are presented accurately. In other words, democratically created Agreed Statements could be produced for introductions to subjects, and ofcourse, relevant pro, and con arguments. The sources for all this would naturally enough be instantly checkable.


http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory


http://theeconomicrealms.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=maria+popova


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
'''The Vital Importance of the Pros, and Cons Format'''


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-game_(philosophy)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language


The link below deals with games that have serious educational value, and could in certain situations even affect socio-economic change. Ofcourse, a pro, and con project such as the above could be presented in an attractive, and stimulating manner.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_game
The structured data of the PUDP should be like the basic format found in the book called ''Pros, and Cons, a Debaters Handbook'' edited by Trevor Sather which went through a number of editions since 1896. Here, two columns are presented, one of which is for pro arguments, and the other for con arguments. This along with a brief lucid presentation of an issue, or topic should ofcourse become ultimately universally "standardized" for the entire world, and act as a truly comprehensive "compliment" to any number of "decentralized" sources of information.


Mind Maps are another way of presenting issues other than the pro, and con approach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_map


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytics
If the "Global Brain", or the Precision Universal Debate were ever set up, its initial concern would probably be with major issues notably social matters, economics, politics, and climate change/global warming. A site could be set up, and it could even have a motto such as "Fair Thinking, Fair World".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatics
Also, it should be added that it is as yet unclear how such a proposal could be funded. It could use the Wikipedia model, or maybe not. It should also be independent of undue influence from governments, and corporations.


Semantics can have relevance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_technology


http://gelookahead.economist.com/data-lake/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction


There are variety of ways for developing greater creativity. One such approach is lateral Thinking.
'''Repeated Data and "Instant Experts"'''


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review
There are ofcourse on the internet any number of forums, and discussion groups. These are fine as far as they go. But as said before how complete are their arguments for, and against a certain topic? Naturally enough, such arguments are continually repeated again, and again. This is where the PUDP becomes all-important.


https://www.ted.com/talks/noreena_hertz_how_to_use_experts_and_when_not_to


The following deals with Upstream Engagement in which people can have informed dialogue about subjects (notably in connection with "controversial" scientific innovation)
A vital aspect of all this is that it should be possible for people to become "instant experts." In other words, they should be able to become reasonably "expert" in the shortest space of time in say some aspect  of economics, biology, or physics, or whatever. Thus, there is an element here of Anti-Credentialism in which essentially good arguments rely on good "objective" thinking rather than relying on the credibility of experts all the time.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l06z0


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatics_(academic_field)
Ofcourse, those who have formal qualifications, and training still play a vital role, but they must be prepared to submit their ideas, and discoveries onto the PUDP. Thus, they could be "fully" scrutinised by other experts, and by the public without relevant credentials. This could all lead in certain instances to "quality" online global "brainstorming", or more precisely "brainwriting" sessions leading to "new" ideas that may have value in society, and the world. Hence, Collective Intelligence at work.  


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_management


Another area of likely relevance is media bias. If undertaken correctly, the Universal Debating Project should be able to present the most "objective" presentation in the world of various topics notably on emotive issues such as genetically modified food, and global warming.
It should be added here too that technical subjects such as physics, and the processes involved in mathematics could be presented verbally, and clearly. In the latter instance, an individual may have little, or no training. But with "simple" verbal step by step presentations he, or she could reach levels of "mathematical understanding." Admitedly, this already happens but with the pud such information could be made even more lucid as "never before".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review


A link of links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_theory


Big Data could play a big role in the all this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_data
'''Knee Jerk Reactions, and Policy Scrutiny'''


http://freespeechdebate.com/en/the-project/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source


The following link is concerned with the idea(!) of Ideonomy which would probably be of great relevance to UDP.
Some people may think that the PUD is somewhat extreme in the extent it wishes to present crystal clear data. This is arguably true to a point, but we do need something which is truly transparent, credible, and holistic as a reliable guide to understanding, and decisions-making on a scale never seen before. Among other things, it can act as an antidote to fake news, or misinformation which would include ofcourse conspiracy theories. Also, in an ideal world subjects such as politics, and the economy should be presented in the clearest, and succinct manner as is possible. But most people though would probably still resort to knee-jerk reactions, and "knock about politics".  


http://ideonomy.mit.edu/intro.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science
As for politicians their policy proposals in an ideal world should always be subjected to proper scrutiny rather than just simply "nodded through" Parliament. Here, the PUD could play an invaluable part in helping to aid making policy quicker, and more effective.  


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_visualization
In the future ofcourse, Artificial Intelligence could make important decisions without human cognitive bias, and hence, reach outcomes which could be far more fair, and progressive. This indeed the use of AI is already happening with the revolutionary IBM Debater Project. However, the ideas presented in connection with the PUDP would still have relevance, and importance in an ever changing world.  


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropic (ie.Smart Drugs)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case-based_reasoning


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Legal_reasoning
Please note the above may be expanded with more data, plus further editing where necessary.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/542715/Yes-and-No


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
'''More Information'''


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor (This could be seen as a complete contradiction to the UDP)
'''Links'''


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
The following list of links may have direct, and indirect relevance to the above p2pfoundation entry. Yet, they are worthy of inclusion here. They also give us an idea of the immensity of the subject of debating, rationality, and thinking......
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_machine_learning_concepts
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
 
 
http://flynn.debating.net/amazon.htm (an interesting list of book references on debating, etc)
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logicism
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning_system
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_reasoner
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_science


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infographic


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PowerPoint


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_and_Crooked_Thinking  A book by the parapsychologist Robert Thouless,(pronounced Tooliss) and one in which he gave a "simplistic" presentation of the different forms of argument.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_Collaboration


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon
Artificial Intelligence will  play a vital role in the future in connection with decision making...thus, the need for such robotic technology to be carefully programmed...  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44531132


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion
The Debater Project or AI created by IBM is the first of its kind..[[See link |See https://research.ibm.com/interactive/project-debater/live/ link ]]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda (a classic example of the "misuse" of data)
There are naturally enough a number of debating "organizations" on the internet. However, the scale, and indeed, scope of the PDP is far greater, and "infinitely" comprehensive.


An important area of enquiry is how accurate, and authentic statistics are. With the aid of the UDP a set of them could be scrutinized rigorously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics


There is an important radio programme which questions statistics...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_or_Less_(radio_programme)


Some interesting info can be found on the discussion section of this page/subject entry.  
http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia%21 (like the Precision Universal Debating Project)


http://p2pfoundation.net/Talk:Universal_Debating_Project


IMPORTANT.
The following is a link to a PDF on the so-called Back Fire Effect


Finally. a blog has been set up. http://universaldebatingproject.blogspot.co.uk/ It includes most, if not all of the articles found at the above links along with some material which may not be listed here.  
https://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf


R.S.       


      See [https://universaldebatingproject.blogspot.com/2024/09/welcome-to-precision-universal-debate.html Precision Universal Debating Project]


[[Category:Facilitation]]
[[Category:Facilitation]]

Latest revision as of 12:36, 4 July 2025

Basic Proposal by Robert Searle 


                                        Since the original article below was written there has been much interest in the phenomenon of Ai in society. This has obvious relevance relevance for the Precision Universal Debate, or PUD. A link below show a large number of relevant material on the subject, and may be of interest and value to the reader. RS



IMPORTANT Though the title of this p2p entry is the Universal Debating Project (at present) it has now been re-named the Precision Universal Debating Project,or PUDP or simply as a concept referred to as Precision Universal Debate or PUD sans the word Project which would indicate that it was somekind of a "movement"/ RS


Tackling the Information Explosion



The Precision Universal Debating Project or PUDP is an extremely ambitious proposal for an ongoing programme in which "all", or most arguments for, or against any topic of human knowledge could be presented in the clearest, and shortest possible form. It would also include an online "encyclopedia"(like Wikipedia) for the pros, and cons of any debate which could be continually updated in Real-Time on the internet. It would naturally be something like the Networking P2P approach, and hence, be an Open Source of structured data emanating from laymen, experts, NGOs, scholarly papers, popular articles, documentaries, web feeds, aggregators, and other sources.


Ofcourse, articles such as those on Wikipedia do try to present arguments for, and against particular subjects. But how "complete," and how unbiased are they? Moreover, they deal probably with mainly major arguments, and to a lesser extent "minor" arguments. In effect, what is needed is the most objective presentation of "all" possible pros, and cons on most, if not "all" kinds of human knowledge.


Ideally, the Precision Universal Debating Project should be publicly seen as being the most reliable, and the most credible central global source of such structured data of its kind which could be continually checked upon by independent sources of data if necessary. It should also act as the most advanced, and "complete" online encyclopedia of its kind in the world. It would be similiar to debatepedia but far more advanced. Its aim ultimately is to achieve improved constructive reasoning, and greater holistic objectivity.It should also become of great practical value for educators, citizens, governments, NGOs, businesses, et al.



Universal Text Simplification in a World of Increasing Complexity



As the world becomes increasingly complex it becomes more, and more vital to....


a) ...reduce most, if not "all" introductory information on a topic into clear, and manageable levels of data (ie. Text Simplification but not "oversimplification")...ideally using the least number of words..(similiar to notes, or "good" power point presentations, and as short comprehensive summaries consisting of one, or more paragraph). This ofcourse is the encyclopaedic dimension of PUD.


b) ...reduce "all" major, and "minor" resulting arguments for, and against a topic in the most lucid manner possible....again ideally using the least number of words...This ofcourse is the pro, and con dimension of the PUDP.


c) ....a whole series of links to various sources could naturally enough be included at the click of a button. Ofcourse, the relevant sentences in "all" cases could be highlighted.


Special editors (paid ideally)could do the above work notably in connection with a), and b). This would mean that any pro, and con arguments which are repeated could be "quickly" reduced into the least number of words, and be free of emotive language. These could be emailed to those in a debate to see if the participants opinions are presented accurately. In other words, democratically created Agreed Statements could be produced for introductions to subjects, and ofcourse, relevant pro, and con arguments. The sources for all this would naturally enough be instantly checkable.



The Vital Importance of the Pros, and Cons Format



The structured data of the PUDP should be like the basic format found in the book called Pros, and Cons, a Debaters Handbook edited by Trevor Sather which went through a number of editions since 1896. Here, two columns are presented, one of which is for pro arguments, and the other for con arguments. This along with a brief lucid presentation of an issue, or topic should ofcourse become ultimately universally "standardized" for the entire world, and act as a truly comprehensive "compliment" to any number of "decentralized" sources of information.


If the "Global Brain", or the Precision Universal Debate were ever set up, its initial concern would probably be with major issues notably social matters, economics, politics, and climate change/global warming. A site could be set up, and it could even have a motto such as "Fair Thinking, Fair World".


Also, it should be added that it is as yet unclear how such a proposal could be funded. It could use the Wikipedia model, or maybe not. It should also be independent of undue influence from governments, and corporations.



Repeated Data and "Instant Experts"



There are ofcourse on the internet any number of forums, and discussion groups. These are fine as far as they go. But as said before how complete are their arguments for, and against a certain topic? Naturally enough, such arguments are continually repeated again, and again. This is where the PUDP becomes all-important.


A vital aspect of all this is that it should be possible for people to become "instant experts." In other words, they should be able to become reasonably "expert" in the shortest space of time in say some aspect of economics, biology, or physics, or whatever. Thus, there is an element here of Anti-Credentialism in which essentially good arguments rely on good "objective" thinking rather than relying on the credibility of experts all the time.


Ofcourse, those who have formal qualifications, and training still play a vital role, but they must be prepared to submit their ideas, and discoveries onto the PUDP. Thus, they could be "fully" scrutinised by other experts, and by the public without relevant credentials. This could all lead in certain instances to "quality" online global "brainstorming", or more precisely "brainwriting" sessions leading to "new" ideas that may have value in society, and the world. Hence, Collective Intelligence at work.


It should be added here too that technical subjects such as physics, and the processes involved in mathematics could be presented verbally, and clearly. In the latter instance, an individual may have little, or no training. But with "simple" verbal step by step presentations he, or she could reach levels of "mathematical understanding." Admitedly, this already happens but with the pud such information could be made even more lucid as "never before".



Knee Jerk Reactions, and Policy Scrutiny


Some people may think that the PUD is somewhat extreme in the extent it wishes to present crystal clear data. This is arguably true to a point, but we do need something which is truly transparent, credible, and holistic as a reliable guide to understanding, and decisions-making on a scale never seen before. Among other things, it can act as an antidote to fake news, or misinformation which would include ofcourse conspiracy theories. Also, in an ideal world subjects such as politics, and the economy should be presented in the clearest, and succinct manner as is possible. But most people though would probably still resort to knee-jerk reactions, and "knock about politics".


As for politicians their policy proposals in an ideal world should always be subjected to proper scrutiny rather than just simply "nodded through" Parliament. Here, the PUD could play an invaluable part in helping to aid making policy quicker, and more effective.


In the future ofcourse, Artificial Intelligence could make important decisions without human cognitive bias, and hence, reach outcomes which could be far more fair, and progressive. This indeed the use of AI is already happening with the revolutionary IBM Debater Project. However, the ideas presented in connection with the PUDP would still have relevance, and importance in an ever changing world.


Please note the above may be expanded with more data, plus further editing where necessary.


More Information


Links

The following list of links may have direct, and indirect relevance to the above p2pfoundation entry. Yet, they are worthy of inclusion here. They also give us an idea of the immensity of the subject of debating, rationality, and thinking......


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_and_Crooked_Thinking A book by the parapsychologist Robert Thouless,(pronounced Tooliss) and one in which he gave a "simplistic" presentation of the different forms of argument.


Artificial Intelligence will play a vital role in the future in connection with decision making...thus, the need for such robotic technology to be carefully programmed... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44531132


The Debater Project or AI created by IBM is the first of its kind..See https://research.ibm.com/interactive/project-debater/live/ link


There are naturally enough a number of debating "organizations" on the internet. However, the scale, and indeed, scope of the PDP is far greater, and "infinitely" comprehensive.


http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia%21 (like the Precision Universal Debating Project)


The following is a link to a PDF on the so-called Back Fire Effect

https://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf 


      See Precision Universal Debating Project
Retrieved from "https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Universal_Debating_Project&oldid=145576"