Discussion

This page is a encyclopedia article. The page identifier is Op_en2382
Moderator: [[category:Moderator:Jouni]][[user:Jouni|Jouni]] [[moderators#Jouni|(see all)]]
Give your opinion to the peer rating of the content of this page. {{ #opasnet_rater: }}
Upload data Show results

<section begin=glossary />

Discussion is a part of an attribute of a formally structured object. In discussion, anyone can raise any relevant points about the property that the attribute describes. Discussion is organised using the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory. A discussion usually consists of three parts: 1) the explication of a dispute; 2) the actual discussion, which is organised as hierarchical threads of arguments; and 3) the resolution.

<section end=glossary />

This page presents rules of discussion engagement and discussion format, as well rules for editing discussions.

Your contribution in the form of remarks or argumentative criticism on the content of the wikipages is most welcome. It can change the outcome of the integrated risk assessment; it will improve it and make the integrated risk assessment better understandable for decision makers and other stakeholders. The discussions will show the reasoning behind our work; it will indicate the objective and normative aspects in the risk assessment. In this way, decision makers and stakeholders in general can judge themselves whether they agree on our normative weighting. In order to obtain an orderly discussion it is appreciated if you follow the discussion rules and apply the discussion format.

Discussion rules

1. Freedom of opinion. Everyone has the right to criticise or comment on the content of the wikipages.
2. State your critique with supporting arguments or your comment or remarks under the tab discussion D↷ and sign it.
3. Comments, remarks, statements and argumentation must relate to the topic of the wikipage.
4. Only statements made and arguments given can be attacked.
5. Comments, remarks, statements and argumentation can NOT be redundant. They cannot be repeated.
6. You are supposed to be committed to your statements, that is:

a) if someone doubts on your statement (-- : ), you must explain it (edit or defend ← : ).

b) if someone attacks your statement (⇤ : ), you must defend it (← : ).

c) if someone doubts on your argument (-- : ), you should explain it (edit or defend ← : ).

d) if someone attacks your argument (⇤ : ), you should defend it (← : ).

Discussion format

BASIC DISCUSSION FORMAT: For discussing, the discussion format (Blue D in the toolbar on the edit tab) should be used. This is how the discussion format appears:

How to read discussions

Statements: Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation: --1: The blue horizontal line represents the comment button. It yields this blue layout, which is used for comments and remarks. ←2: This green arrow represents a defending argument. ⇤3: This red arrow represents an offending argument.

Furthermore:

• If you agree with an argument made by others, you can place your signature (in the toolbar) under the argument.
• Arguments may be edited or restructured. However, if there are signatures of other people, only minor edits are allowed without their explicit acceptance.
• If agreement is reached, i.e. the dispute is settled or resolved, the result can be stated at resolution.

N.B. In order to contribute to the discussion you should be logged in. If you have not yet a user account, you can make one.

---

Argument types

It is recommended that you indicate your argument type, so that readers (decision makers) can see at once whether the argument is theoretical (T), ethical (E) or practical (P). Theoretical arguments are arguments that can be falsified with scientific information. Ethical arguments are arguments based on ethics. Practical arguments are situation specific arguments. These are arguments based on the content. In addition, there may be arguments about the relevance (R). Relevance means that an argument is useful and in a right place in its context in the discussion. Notation examples:

⇤7 E: This is an example of the notation of an offending ethical argument.

←8 T: This is an example of the notation of a defending theoretical argument.

Argumentation structure

Coordinative argumentation is using complementing arguments, that are mutual dependent for the defense of/attack on the statement. Subordinative argumentation is using arguments to support arguments.

If you use coordinative arguments, it is recommended that you use this notation:

←3 P: (3.1) We have no capacity for further research. AND (3.2.) There is no budget to outsource research.

If you use subordinative argumentation, it is recommended that you use this notation:

←4 P: We have no time for further research on this topic.

←5 P: Because there is other research to be done.

←6 P: Because the results of that research have to be included into the report.

The purpose of the numbers is to make it easier to refer to a specific argument. The numbers are simply sequential numbers and they do not show a position in the argumentation thread. If you add an argument between the two other ones, the arguments do not show up in numerical order. This is OK. However with coordinative arguments, sub-numbering is used because only the arguments together make a whole rational argument. Alone these arguments would not hold against rational criticism.

Editing discussions

1. Anyone can edit a discussion.
2. If you have initiated a discussion, it is expected that you act as moderator for the discussion.
3. It is polite to inform the other discussion participants about changes (by placing a notification on their user page).
4. Only minor changes can be made to arguments with signatures of other people. However, you can suggest improvements and ask the persons who signed the original argument if they agree.
5. On a particular level of argumentation, valid threads come first ( ⇤# : or ←# : ), invalidated threads at the end ( ⇤# or ←# ) of the discussion.
6. You cannot simply remove arguments that are irrelevant within their context. This is what you can do instead:

   a) You can attack the argument with a relevance argument. If you are right, your argument will invalidate the original one.

   b) You can cut and paste the argument into a relevant discussion. Please, write a comment on the original argument location describing what was moved, why the argument was moved (you must be able to show the arguments irrelevance), and to where it was moved (add a link to the new page).

See also

• Pragma-dialectical argumentation theory

Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.