How to State a Theory or Argument

[David M.]

I have made this discussion so that we may have a semi-formalized way
to state our theories without looking n00bish. And since I fall mostly
under that category I propose someone else states a way to write an
argument or theory. Thanks.

[David Reich]

Well, I recently, erm, acquired a big long audio-lecture series on Argumentation, so I'll make a torrent for that and post it up.  It's a bit way too freakin' long though, so I'll start making one here.  I first would like to propose this to be a 'living document', changed as we come up with better things for it, but here's a starting point, in no particular order:

Arguments must be laid out in a logical manner, clearly enumerating each step in the argument.  This needn't be done by line breaks, but more than a simple stream of consiousness should be used. 
Any axioms or postulates taken should be made at the beginning of the argument, unless they are minor and would flow better in the body. 
Whenever possible, citations and quotes (particularly of your opponent's argument) should be used, and a source given.  There is no proper method of citing, but hyperlinks should be used
Arguments known to be fallicious may be made, but it's good form to admit that they were at the end of the argument
If a fallacy is found in the opponents argument, it should be named, explained, and the result on the opponent's argument should be explained
An opponent's seperate points should be responded to seperately


That's all I can think of quickly

[David M.]

I made a page for this which looks much more formal:
http://groups.google.com/group/the-sspc/web/sspc-argument-theory-structure.
anyone can edit it (members)

On Apr 30, 6:38 pm, David Reich <ellimi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I recently, erm, acquired a big long audio-lecture series on
> Argumentation, so I'll make a torrent for that and post it up.  It's a bit
> way too freakin' long though, so I'll start making one here.  I first would
> like to propose this to be a 'living document', changed as we come up with
> better things for it, but here's a starting point, in no particular order:
>
> Arguments must be laid out in a logical manner, clearly enumerating each
> step in the argument.  This needn't be done by line breaks, but more than a
> simple stream of consiousness should be used.
> Any axioms or postulates taken should be made at the beginning of the
> argument, unless they are minor and would flow better in the body.
> Whenever possible, citations and quotes (particularly of your opponent's
> argument) should be used, and a source given.  There is no proper method of
> citing, but hyperlinks should be used
> Arguments known to be fallicious may be made, but it's good form to admit
> that they were at the end of the argument
> If a fallacy is found in the opponents argument, it should be named,
> explained, and the result on the opponent's argument should be explained
> An opponent's seperate points should be responded to seperately
>
> That's all I can think of quickly
>

[David Reich]

Wow, yes, that is a lot better, thanks.

[Paul Gully]

am updating this, too. we need to have different 'guidelines' for formal vs. relaxed discussion. normal 'debate' rules are hard to apply to this completely free-form online discussion where you could jump in wherever you like. 

also making a few more pages as well.

[Paul Gully]

OK. so two more pages (on argument, etc) have been made. David M, if you want to format them so they are consistant, feel free. 

also, make more general pages.