Typical format:
People...
| ...that agree with Thesis #1 | ...that disagree with Thesis #1 |
| 1. PTA#1 | 1. PTD#1 |
| 2. PTA#2 | 2. PTD#2 |
People as reasons to agree and disagree
It is a logical fallacy to appeal to authority. However it can be an appropriate form of rational argument if all parties agree that the testimony is appropriate to the circumstances. For this reason it would be be interesting to analyze which so called experts agree or disagree with different beliefs.
This website is built upon the premise that we can organize data in such a way, that we can promote good ideas, and demote bad ideas.
We will play with letting information related to those who agree or disagree with an idea affect the idea’s score. For instance, how many google search results come up with a given name? How many news stories? How many Google Scholar citations the person being cited?
In order for us to have any hope in mankind’s future, we have to believe that good ideas are recognized by smart people and carried forward throughout history. If this is true, smart people from the past will be remembered today. Plato, Aristotle, and Newton were all remembered because they said something true.
Algorithms are working today that rank scholars according to how often they are cited by their peers.
We will use similar techniques to promote ideas that are supported by many trained experts.
The ranking of users on how well they follow the rules, so that those who follow good dispute resolution techniques are rewarded.
- Rewarding those who support ideas before they are popular, once consensus has been achieved
- Arrogance. Are beliefs presented as facts.
- Respect. Is the poster letting his data do the talking, or are they trying to win by threatening or name calling.
Rewarding those who support ideas before they are popular, once consensus has been achieved
