home
 
 
 
Outlining
© Science Admins
 
This is a discussion of the outlining techniques, and related issues.
 
Page: 1  2   3   4   5 
'13-11-28, 14:39
 
Lloyd
St. Louis area

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.

'13-11-28, 22:01
 
Developer
Baltimore, MD, USA
 
Lloyd said:
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.
Yes, the footnote technology is already working (and this post is an example of its usage). You just select some text and click the "Post Reply" button, and it creates the quote in the editor for you, and places the footnote in the source text.
 
Beyond that, you have a really cool idea about extracting arguments from an existing paper, to build an outline, perhaps semi-automatically, just from the markers.
 
I might do something simpler first. Assuming that it's actually a thread that's being gleaned, which is poorly organized, I'd like to be able to select some text and click an "Add to Summary" button, and it would copy the text to a summary table at the beginning of the thread.*11687 Items in the table would appear just in chronological order. Making a logical outline out of that would have to be done by hand. But the first step is always going to be identifying the salient points and asembling them somewhere. So that's worth doing anyway. Then we can think about logical markers.
'13-11-28, 22:14
 
Developer
Baltimore, MD, USA
 
Lloyd said:
Maybe a wiki would be a good place to post papers and critique them. Do you have the capability to make a wiki?
QDL already does everything that wikis can do, and way more, so QDL is the way to go. ;)
'13-11-29, 00:22
 
Lloyd
St. Louis area

In this post Make Footnote Numbers Clickable I asked if each footnote number can be made clickable to go to its location in the text. Above, you seem to be explaining how the footnote numbers are made, but it doesn't seem that they're clickable yet. Are they?

If this site can support wikis, have you considered adding a wiki section under "QDL" along with blogs, articles, forums etc?*11594 Wouldn't a wiki take a lot of memory? Isn't your site also limited on how many images can appear on a page without causing problems browsing the page?*11598 Google Images can stack lots of images on a page pretty quickly. What does this site lack for that? Just memory?

If we can select any text as you explained above and then click on Post Reply and the selected text will appear as a quotation in the Reply box and a footnote number is added to the original text (just after the part selected I presume), can you also rig something separately to allow a moderator to label selected text as a premise or conclusion and what number premise or conclusion it supports? It seems like that might then make it possible to collect all of the statements that are premises and conclusions in a separate post, with each premise and conclusion labeled and numbered. Then each critique boxes and refutation boxes could be available for readers to use. How about that?

It's nice that you know your tech stuff and are willing to discuss it. Otherwise, I'd be bored now, I think.

'13-11-29, 04:55
 
Developer
Baltimore, MD, USA
 
Lloyd said:
If this site can support wikis, have you considered adding a wiki section under "QDL" along with blogs, articles, forums etc?
Why do you want a wiki? A wiki just gives people a way of posting articles. QDL already has a way of posting articles. ;) So you have to let me know what you're after, that you can't get already in QDL.
'13-11-29, 05:08
 
Developer
Baltimore, MD, USA
 
Lloyd said:
Isn't your site also limited on how many images can appear on a page without causing problems browsing the page?

The way you do images (i.e., just by copying and pasting straight into the editor), it might be a little slow. Most sites don't support this. It would be faster if you actually uploaded the images, as files, to the QDL server. (See Uploading Images for more info.) You don't get to control the rights that way, but performance-wise, it's better.

'13-11-30, 02:53
 
Developer
Baltimore, MD, USA
 
Developer said:
Assuming that it's actually a thread that's being gleaned, which is poorly organized, I'd like to be able to select some text and click an "Add to Summary" button, and it would copy the text to a summary table at the beginning of the thread.

OK, I got the initial implementation of this done, so you can check it out if you want. The documentation is here: Add to Summary.

'13-11-30, 03:45
 
Lloyd
St. Louis area

I tried to follow the directions at Add to Summary, but I failed. It looks to me like it would be easier to copy a thread into a text or Word document and delete everything but the summary statements, and then copy the summary statements all together to wherever desired.*11711 Putting a title on each summary statement would seem to take a lot of time and effort.*11712

'13-11-30, 03:54
 
Developer
Baltimore, MD, USA
 
Lloyd said:
I tried to follow the directions at Add to Summary, but I failed.
Where did the process break down?
'13-11-30, 03:55
 
Developer
Baltimore, MD, USA
 
Lloyd said:
It looks to me like it would be easier to copy a thread into a text or Word document and delete everything but the summary statements, and then copy the summary statements all together to wherever desired.
The way I have it now (if it's working), you can select a relevant quote, make edits to it, and come up with a brief description for a title, and then it would roll all of that up into a collapsable item in the target document, along with a link back to the source document, in case you want to look at the statements in the surrounding context later. So I think that the cross-referencing is useful.
Page: 1  2   3   4   5 


← PREV Powered by Quick Disclosure Lite
© 2010~2024 SCS-INC.US
NEXT →