some random notes on argument mapping stuff

towards standard formats for argument mapping

levels of acceptance/agreement/belief in a proposition

0: i may or may not agree with this, but i don't want to say anything about it now (the default) 1: (provisional) for the sake of argument i'll accept this for now; please continue 2: i think i agree with this 3: i assert this

negative levels: a reflection of the positive ones; except that negative levels can mean EITHER that you agree with the negation of the proposition, OR that you think there is something else wrong, for instance, absurdity, loaded language, violation of the rules of debate, etc.

publicity

-3: this is a secret -2: please don't repeat this -1: in general, i like to keep this sort of thing private; but you can use your discretion 0: use your discretion (the default) 1: in general, feel free to repeat what i say about this sort of thing; but use your discretion 2: sure, tell the world 3: i'm trying to publicize this

publicity values can also be "scoped" by audience. some predefined scopes are:

• mutual friends
• blogs
• mass media
• world (the default)

note that the "mutual friends" scope means mutual friends of the speaker; a friend who receives such a communication from a friend of the speaker is not supposed to pass it on to another friend who is not a friend of the speaker.

publicity values can also be "scoped" by presentation attributes. some predefined attributes are:

• attributed (the default) or anonymous
• quote or paraphrase (the default) or speaker paraphrase
  • quote means to repeat someone's exact words. paraphrase means to give your sense of what the person said. speaker paraphrase means to ask the person who said the thing what wording should be used when repeating it.

publicity values can also be modified by disclaimers, indicating that this kind of publicity is only authorized if the specifed disclaimer is conveyed. some predefined disclaimers are:

• note that i say this only as a private individual, not in any other capacity
• note that i say this only as a private individual; in particular, i am not representing the position of (organization with which i may be associated)
• note that i say this only as a representative of (organization), not necessarily as a private individual
• note that i don't know much about this particular issue
• note that i don't know much about this general topic
• note that this is an off-the-cuff answer which may change after i have time to think about it
• note that i may be biased or have some incentive to say a particular thing here
• note that i have no special insight or information here, and am just repeating opinions that i have heard from others
• note that i am not very sure about this

notes:

• anonymous scope is completely public -- even if someone wants to tell you an opinion in private, you can always say, "well, i once met someone who thought....", provided there isn't enough context for a listener to guess who it was who thought it. the only exceptions are secrets such as business plans (which aren't opinions anyhow) and personally embarrassing stuff (neither of which is likely to be marked up using this standard).

fact checking

https://reporterslab.org/fact-checking/ has a list of ~115 fact checking sites

how they define and identify a 'fact checking site':

" non-partisan organizations around the world that regularly publish articles or broadcast segments that assess the accuracy of statements made by public officials, political parties, candidates, journalists, news organizations, associations and other groups.

The Lab considers many attributes in determining which organizations to include, such as whether the site:

• examines all parties and sides;
• examines discrete claims and reaches conclusions;
• tracks political promises;
• is transparent about sources and methods;
• discloses funding/affiliations;
• and whether its primary mission is news and information.

Many fact-checkers in the database are affiliated with news organizations. Others are typically associated with non-governmental groups that conduct non-partisan journalism and focus on issues such as civic engagement, government transparency and public accountability. "

fact checking schema/microstandard: https://schema.org/ClaimReview

https://schema.org/ClaimReview is used by Google: https://blog.google/products/search/fact-check-now-available-google-search-and-news-around-world/ see https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/factcheck for details

random fact checking widget: http://www.sharethefacts.org/

---

" It’s easy to think that arguments have just three terminal truth values: right, maybe, and wrong. In practice, arguments (and in particular, the sort of argument that we use to justify actions) have many possible truth values. These include things like ‘got the details wrong, but is by-and-large correct’, or ‘is correct but for a different level of abstraction; doesn’t apply here’, or ‘is partially correct, but isn’t as useful compared to a different framing of things.’ " -- [1]