More actions
Created page with "One of the central goals of the ratings system is to help people think better. Logic is a fundamental aspect of that, along with having reliable factual information." |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Main|Ratings system}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | One of the central goals of the [[ratings system]] is to help people think better. [[wikipedia:Logic|Logic]] is a fundamental aspect of that, along with having reliable factual information. Here we will discuss various aspects of logic and how it might be practically incorporated into the ratings system. |
||
We start first with [[Thoughts on symbolic logic to assess the truth of arguments|symbolic logic]], which is really a subset of mathematics. Many arguments, through careful inspection, can be reduced to symbolic forms and analyzed using rigorous methods. Software is available for doing this and we take a brief look at how AI fares in this regard. We take this a step further by introducing [[More methods for propositional logic, syllogistic logic, and quantificational logic|methods for propositional, syllogistic, and quantificational (predicate) logic]]. The [[Prolog for deductive proofs|Prolog programming language]] is also useful for symbolic logic. |
|||
Logic can also be divided by argument type such as [[Deductive & inductive arguments and use cases|deductive and inductive arguments]]. Another important distinction is formal logic, which is everything we have mentioned so far, and [[Informal logic and fallacies|informal logic and fallacy detection]]. A couple of different [[Software for argumention -- IBM Project Debater and Carneades|software packages for argumentation]] are analyzed but neither seem altogether suitable for incorporation into a ratings system. One of them, Carneades, can also be viewed as an argument mapping tool. [[More argument mapping tools and proposed ideas for our own such tool|Argument mapping tools]] seem like they offer a better avenue for incorporation. |
|||
Latest revision as of 16:33, 8 September 2024
Main article: Ratings system
One of the central goals of the ratings system is to help people think better. Logic is a fundamental aspect of that, along with having reliable factual information. Here we will discuss various aspects of logic and how it might be practically incorporated into the ratings system.
We start first with symbolic logic, which is really a subset of mathematics. Many arguments, through careful inspection, can be reduced to symbolic forms and analyzed using rigorous methods. Software is available for doing this and we take a brief look at how AI fares in this regard. We take this a step further by introducing methods for propositional, syllogistic, and quantificational (predicate) logic. The Prolog programming language is also useful for symbolic logic.
Logic can also be divided by argument type such as deductive and inductive arguments. Another important distinction is formal logic, which is everything we have mentioned so far, and informal logic and fallacy detection. A couple of different software packages for argumentation are analyzed but neither seem altogether suitable for incorporation into a ratings system. One of them, Carneades, can also be viewed as an argument mapping tool. Argument mapping tools seem like they offer a better avenue for incorporation.