Today's discussion spanned several loosely-connected topics: UI, Curation, the fundamental nature of Claims (as usual!), domain/OO modeling, to name a few. The discussion was also about, and simultaneously a perfect example of the misunderstandings we can have in these discussions that (hopefully unnecessarily) take up an inordinate amount of our time. (I have said more than once that if we could all spend a single week together in person, we'd be years ahead on this project).
This is the first in (hopefully) a series of summaries in our several-times-a-week hangouts. Each summary will quickly point out some important topics covered in our meetings, with the goals of making them more accessible, documenting our progress, inviting outside comment, and providing some textual form of lookup for the YouTube videos we have been recording. I'll try to keep this up, but no promises!
This first highlight will also be more dense than most. …
The Canonical Debate Lab has been recording our hangouts for a while now, and posting them to our channel on YouTube.
They may be a little dense and boring for outsiders, but if you're interested, please subscribe! I'll try to post summaries of our meetings to index the discussions whenever I have the time.
Timothy High and Bentley Davis, two co-founders of the Canonical Debate Lab, appeared this week on the In The Bin podcast with Steve Llano. The discussion ranged from how we all got started to why we chose to focus on argument mapping as way to represent debases, to the purposes of rhetoric versus reason, and where we see the Canonical Debate fitting in to the ecosystem of online argumentation. Bentley also described his project Gulli Bot, a unique take on debate as an exercise in convincing a cute, but completely gullible tabula rasa robot that it should believe your point. Special mention was also given to our partner project The Society Library. Look for them to appear on a later episode of In The Bin!
One of the many things presented as evidence that Democrats committed electoral fraud in the 2020 Presidential election is the claim that there's a statistically unusual number of votes for Joe Biden that are "missing" for the Democratic candidate for the Senate:
The original poster has blocked me from seeing this tweet after I posted my first fact check, but it looks like Medium was able to embed it.
The claim goes on to include other states that present a similar "anomaly", showing an apparent pattern of unusual vote counts, only in swing states, adding up to proof of…
It’s been a long time since my last article from the group. A LOT has happened over that time (both in the group, and obviously, the world). Many subjects have crossed my mind to write about here, but I haven’t found the time. I’d like to take those deep dives at some point, but I thought now would be a good opportunity to give some quick news as to the latest activities with the Canonical Debate Lab (CDL).
The CDL has continued to grow, slowly but steadily. We passed the 100-member mark in our Slack team a while back, but…
We believe a critical part of the #Truth2020 movement is the practice of fact checking. That is, analyzing statements that have been made by political candidates, or those around them, and gauging them as to whether or not they are true (and how much).
There are many organizations that have dedicated themselves entirely to this activity. Others, news outlets like CNN and The Washington Post, have dedicated an entire section of their publications to this specific activity.
As important as fact checking is, it's not the be-all end-all solution for truth in politics. There are several forces at work here.
Recently, I announced the kickoff of the so-called hashtag movement, #Truth2020. While the name is to some degree self-explanatory (hint: it's about focusing on truth in the U.S. 2020 elections), it only scratches the surface, and leaves more questions than answers.
If the goal is to focus on, or get at "the truth", then what is it, and how will we know when we've found it? #Truth2020 is a decentralized movement, and will never take a position on what is or isn't "the truth". …
It can be very hard to engage with people online to have a reasonable conversation about the #Truth2020 movement. Even harder is to explain how we can actually make a difference.
Fortunately, there is one goal that is truly bipartisan, which can have very clear results: start asking people to quote their sources!
We need to restore the faith in our journalistic sources. At the same time, we need to hold them to account when they publish false or misleading information. So far, this has manifested itself only as unspecific accusations, which themselves are either false, or are too vague…
2016 was the year of post-truth. Since then, we have been lobbing the hot-potato of "Fake News" back and forth without any true, unified effort to define what it is and, more importantly, take measures to get rid of it once and for all.
Let 2020 be the year of truth in politics!
Democracy is imagined to be the best system (so far) for a large nation to make collective decisions, with the participation of everyone, for the good of all. The United States is the oldest existing representative democracy in existence today. …
Founder of The Canonical Debate Lab