Universal Debating Project
Project proposed by Robert Searle:
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 a clear form. In other words, an online "encyclopedia" for pros, and cons in any debate which could be continually updated in real-time on the internet. It would adopt the p2p approach, and hence, be an Open Source of data emanating from laymen, experts,NGOs, scholarly papers, popular articles, documentaries,web feeds, aggregators (ie.feed readers, or news readers), et al.
Obviously, Wikipedia articles do 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 maybe 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 data.
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...ideally using the least number of words..(similiar to "good" powerpoint presentations)
b) ...reduce "all" arguments for, and against in a lucid manner....again ideally using the least number of words...
Special editors could do the above. Thus, any pro, and con arguments which are repeated could be "quickly" reduced into the least numbers of words. 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? This is where the UDP becomes all-important.
A vital aspect of all this is that it should be possible for people to become to become "instant experts." In other words, people should be able to become reasonably "expert" in a shortest space of time in say some branch of economics, or science such as psychology, or physics. Ofcourse, those who have formal qualifications, and training still play a vital role in this, but they must be prepared to submit their ideas, and discoveries onto the UDP, and not just universities. Thus, they could be "fully" scrutinised by other experts, and by the public without relevant credentials. This could all lead to online global "brainstorming" sessions leading to "new" ideas that may have value in society, and the world.
It should become clear that the aim of the UDP is help improve reasoned rational argument, and to appreciate all sides of a topics. Such a holistic approach could be also an aid in the process of decision making whether it be in life, or in discussions.
Basic Systemization of Presentation on the Universal Debating Project
The presentation of data on various subjects should be simple. It could be like "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 lucid, 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. At present, how new this concept is unknown but it is worth considering.
If the "Global Brain", or Universal Debating Project were ever set up, its initial concern would be with major issues notably social matters, politics, and climate change/global warming. A site could be set up in time, 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.
The following list of links may have direct, and indirect relevance to the above p2pfoundation entry. Yet, they are worthy of inclusion here.
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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
This link below deals with rationality, and it too could be reduced to a pro, and con presentation so that an informed decision-making process could be undertaken by the individual.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/
The link below deals with "non-entertainment" 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. In other words, a serious game, and probably something like this already exists. 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
Semantics can have relevance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_technology
There are variety of ways for developing greater creativity. One such approach is lateral Thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking
The importance of not to "cherry pick" evidential material in order to present an "objective"picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review
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
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
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
Since the above "article" was put on the p2pfoundation listing a very similiar project exists to it..However, I was not suprised admitedly as it is an excellent concept which deserves to be considered seriously.
Something similiar also exists but is by any means "identical" in approach
Also, some intersting info can be found on the discussion section of this page/subject entry. http://p2pfoundation.net/Talk:Universal_Debating_Project