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.
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
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
