Universal Debating Project

Basic Proposal by Robert Searle

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 simply as a concept referred to as Precision Universal Debate (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 PUDP 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 UDP 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatics_(academic_field)

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/Cochrane_Collaboration

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda (a classic example of the "misuse" of data)

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://p2pfoundation.net/Talk:Precision Universal_Debating_Project

IMPORTANT.

Finally, a blog has been set up. http://universaldebatingproject.blogspot.co.uk/ Other "relevant" subject matters not included as links in the above may also exist on the blog itself, and maybe included at the P2P Foundation site.

R.S.