Is the purpose of this logic tree to attempt to incorporate aspects of dialog mapping, or truth mapping? That's why I'm interested in those other programs. It looks like some aspects of them could improve and simplify how we produce papers on this site.

I agree that QDL likely has greater potential than do those programs by themselves, but it looks to me like QDL in combination with them would be a big improvement for both.

You said:
- My reason for using QDL (at least just for now) is that I'm seeing that all of the other systems really just have one feature that makes it possible to see the structure of the logic:
- they can represent hierarchies, where you have points and sub-points,
- and if everybody puts their arguments precisely where they're supposed to go in the hierarchy, you don't get any repetition, or off-topic wandering, etc.
- Well, QDL does hierarchies, and it's a much more powerful app,
- where you can do formatted text, and post images, and cross-link stuff, and control rights, etc.

Yes, it helps if people using truthmapping put their statements and questions in the right places, but, if they don't, readers can point out their errors, maybe as critique statements.

- Those other apps "just" allow you to post little bits of text.
- Of course, they have a pre-defined workflow, and sometimes it's useful to force people into a regimented format.

I don't think there's a limit to what people can write in a truthmapping paper. The main statements have to be limited, but the archives don't have limits.

- Since QDL wasn't designed to do just this, it will take some protocol to keep things well-formatted.
- But in the long run, QDL might be the better choice, because it's so much more flexible.
- I've never seen an app with a very narrowly-defined workflow last long in the real world.
- So anyway, I'll work on laying out the logic, and then maybe we could enter it into those other apps, so we can compare the same logic in a variety of formats, to see which one we like.

It seems like it wouldn't be real hard to adapt any paper to truthmapping on your site here. Anyone could go through an existing paper and label the main premises and conclusions. We initially discussed having QDL allow anyone to insert footnotes into any paper on your site. I think you said that was doable. If so, then it should be possible to insert markers for premises and conclusions.*¹¹⁵⁷⁷ On the truthmapping site they require that each premise and conclusion show what other it supports, because it makes the logic obvious and it can be seen easily if the premises do support the conclusion etc. So for inserting premise and conclusion markers into a paper on this site, I think it would be helpful if there were a way to show which premises support other premises and conclusions. And, when a person is finished inserting all the premise and conclusion markers in a paper, it should be possible to translate the paper into its logical structure of premises and conclusions, with extraneous statements etc going into an archive that could be opened while looking at the logic tree of the paper. That could involve the little pointer icons you use for posts. Click the pointer to open the archive post.

Once a paper has its premises, conclusions and relationships marked, then it would be ready for readers to review it and add critiques, which the author/s or anyone could either add refutations to or revise the premise or conclusion. Do you think it would be very doable to incorporate the truthmapping format on a portion of your site, so readers and authors could do that?

Maybe a wiki would be a good place to post papers and critique them. Do you have the capability to make a wiki?*¹¹⁵⁷⁶ I have a wiki on wikispaces.com, that I never look at, but so I'm a little familiar with them.