Introduction to Part I
In Sect.3.1, we outline the argumentative structure of Part I; we explain how its chapters, by exploring ever more sophisticated simulation setups, build on each other and follow a consistent line of reasoning. Based on this general orientation, we pinpoi
- PDF / 107,403 Bytes
- 10 Pages / 439.36 x 666.15 pts Page_size
- 70 Downloads / 299 Views
Introduction to Part I
In Sect. 3.1, we outline the argumentative structure of Part I; we explain how its chapters, by exploring ever more sophisticated simulation setups, build on each other and follow a consistent line of reasoning. Based on this general orientation, we pinpoint, in Sect. 3.2, the different pieces of evidence which back the main results concerning consensus-conduciveness (cf. Sect. 1.4) and which are spread all over Part I. Hence, Sect. 3.2 shall serve as a bridge that connects the condensed results reported in the general introduction to the specific simulation studies and analyses carried out in the ensuing chapters.
3.1 Outline of Part I We start, in Chap. 4, by studying the most simple implementation of the general simulation design. Accordingly, the simulation experiments presented in this chapter rely on highly simplified modeling assumptions. That is, there is no background knowledge, new arguments are constructed randomly, and proponents adopt the coherent position which is closest to their previous one. The simulation experiments confirm a basic hypothesis, which says that the overall consensus reached in a debate at some step t depends on two factors: (1) the initial agreement between proponents, and (2) the inferential density of the dialectical structure at step t. More specifically, the simulations reveal that, in general, proponents approach each other in a controversy (i.e., as the inferential density rises) only slowly—no matter whether we consider mean proponent agreement or the number of proponent positions which fully agree in a debate. Initial agreement influences the mutual rapprochement of proponents, too: proponents who have agreed broadly prior to a debate tend to agree throughout a debate, as well. However, initial agreement can also be destroyed during a controversy, as the simulations show. A random walk effect explains such alienation. In addition, we find that the doxastic dynamic of a controversy depends significantly on how newly introduced arguments shape the space of coherent positions (SCP). Debates with a highly fragmented SCP display, on average, a G. Betz, Debate Dynamics: How Controversy Improves Our Beliefs, Synthese Library 357, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4599-5 3, © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
55
56
3 Introduction to Part I
different agreement evolution than debates with a compact SCP. We introduce the metaphors of the fishing net and, respectively, of the flooded village to explain the specific impact of the SCP’s dynamic geometry. Besides giving rise to these detailed analyses, the simple simulation experiments highlight, quite generally, that engaging in a rational argumentation—where arguments are discovered randomly and there is no common background knowledge—in no way guarantees that proponents will approach each other, as long as the inferential density is not unrealistically high. This negative finding motivates further, more sophisticated simulation experiments, which are studied in the ensuing chapters: Does background knowl
Data Loading...
