Software tools for community truth-seeking

That's a great criticism. By allowing the viewer to focus on each small step, these arguments can be checked step-by-step more rigorously. However, by encouraging this small-scale focus, you leave yourself open to inconsistencies that can only be seen at a larger scope.

A syllogism is three lines, each containing a quantifier, a subject, and a possibly negated predicate. It is a really rigid form of argument, and not tree-like at all. You may be thinking of a sorites, which is a bunch of syllogisms put together. Tree structured arguments are incredibly common in all kinds of logic, proof theory, and argumentation theory. Leaping from "tree-shaped" to "sorites" is like leaping from "flattish" to "flat-earthers".

Regardless of my nitpicking, I agree with you: we need progeny of these experiments. I may disagree about the details (predicate logic? lojban?!).

I used to be quite interested in that kind of technology, I had even set up a few experiments on wiki, though they never went that far ... I used to argue that those could be a good way of creating information on divisive issues, as an alternative to having both sides set up their own resources and avoid linking to good arguments from the other side.

I guess now I've lost interest about those, and don't think they're that useful. Someday I'll have to go back and try all the "high-tech debate" sites that have sprunt up, but I'm more skeptical about the benefit of those kinds of "debate technology". (one red flag is I don't feel that inclined to participate in them, at least, much less than I would in forums or blog comments)

I think having publicly edited "chains of reasoning" could be interesting, because they could help show someone where others might disagree with his logic. Like, if the objectivists you mention had their formal proofs laid out for public criticism, they'd probably be forced to admit that it isn't as strong as what they thought.

In other words, I don't think "pyramids of logic" have much value, but these sites might help point out the weaknesses of pyramids of logic to those who rely on them too much (Blaise Pascal, I'm looking at you).

If I am not mistaken, you have several criticisms of truthmapper. I've tried to respond to them in a carefully numbered fashion. This separation might be a rough approximation of the way a software tool would structure an argument.

1. A proof from the sole premise 'A is A' concluding 'Taxation is slavery' is certainly fallacious, I agree. Can you expand on what the 'same reason' is? I'm not sure what I'm expected to see in the argument you reference. It is awkward at the very least, but it is more detailed, concrete and falsifiable than many trollish claims, and some of its flaws are pointed out in the critiques.

2. The site may encourage people to be sloppy in their argumentation, or it may make sloppiness more obvious.

3. The video makes a fallacious claim "all assumptions explicit", and that diminishes my trust of the organization, I agree.

4. I'm not sure what you mean by "argument should work like an Aristotelian syllogism". There are many flaws in syllogisms - the one I remember is the inability to prove that a horse's head is an animal's head. Because the claims are natural language text, the structure truthmapper enforces is looser than a syllogism; merely a tree of claims and supporting claims.

5. You're entirely correct, the logo is not good.

6. Paying official attention to argumentation may encourage making it a status contest, with individuals striving to "win" rather than striving to discover the truth. This is a thorny problem for rationality, but I don't think it is confined to argumentation software.

Good analysis Yvain. I guess TruthMapper could be handy when some reasoning pushed the limits of your working memory, yet the emphasis on debate and persuassiveness, grates almost as much as the ghastly web design.

The first thing I noticed was "What is not fully understood is not possessed." - Goethe. I've got a car, a book on string theory and a spleen that I am quite confident I possess. Annoying.