Intelligence Augmentation

The Prisoner's Dilemma

Tim Van Gelder's blog put me on to some interesting philosophical arguments mapped in ReasonAble, the forerunner to Rationale software, by Dave Spurret of the University of Durban.

I have an interest in game-theory, so the argument maps for the contention that it is rational to defect in a one shot prisoner's dilemma drew my attention:

(Click to enlarge)

For those who are unfamiliar with the prisoners dilemma, the wikipedia entry is a good introduction:

In game theory, the prisoner's dilemma is a type of non-zero-sum game in which two players can "cooperate" with or "defect" (i.e. betray) the other player. In this game, as in all game theory, the only concern of each individual player ("prisoner") is maximizing his/her own payoff, without any concern for the other player's payoff.

The argument that it is always better to defect (in a single iteration game) is based upon the premise that:

In the classic form of this game, cooperating is strictly dominated by defecting, so that the only possible equilibrium for the game is for all players to defect. In simpler terms, no matter what the other player does, one player will always gain a greater payoff by playing defect. Since in any situation playing defect is more beneficial than cooperating, all rational players will play defect.

This can also be illustrated by use of a simple table:

From this table you can see that if a player Co-operates, then the otcome for that player is guaranteed to be either Win or Lose-big. In contrast, if the player Defects, the guaranteed outcome for that player is either Win-big or Lose. No matter what the other player does, it is in each player's interest to defect.

An argument about determinism

A good place to look for arguments on which you can practice your argument mapping skills is at TruthMapping. Not only does it have a database of arguments that have already been open to challenge and debate, it also has a primitive map of each these arguments, which may help you get started

As an example, I picked an argument from TruthMapping about whether or not determinism can be shown to be either true or false:

1) PREMISE: The only claims about public reality which can be considered true or false are those which can in principle be submitted for experimental evaluation.

2) PREMISE: Determinism claims that all events in the universe are controlled by physical laws.

3) PREMISE: No matter what the outcome of any experiment, a determinist can claim that it was determined.

4) FROM 1,2 AND 3 IT FOLLOWS THAT: There is no experiment which can prove the truth of determinism.

5) FROM 4 IT FOLLOWS THAT: Determinism can be neither true nor false.

The primitive argument diagram looked like this (I have dropped statement 6 from the written statements, since it was a step further than the thesis of the argument)

So, having played about with it, what did I come up with?

You will probably see, that in addition to the objections being placed within the diagram itself, the structure has also changed. This is a great advantage of using argument mapping, because when you see the arguments laid out in diagrammatic form, you also notice that what you originally thought was a supporting claim actually requires a suppressed premise, or what you assumed were separate premises are in fact mutually dependant.

You can download the Rationale file Download Determinism.rtnl. I have included a bonus argument on determinism (a picture of its structure follows) - but it has not been analysed. I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

A work in progress

I am currently working on creating an argument map illustrating Stephen Law's excellent book "The War for Children's Minds" which is a well argued plea to teach Kantian Liberal enlightenment values (primarily critical thinking) to our children. It is a daunting prospect, particularly for someone with my limited experience of argument mapping, but here is a snapshot of this 'work in progress'.

Click for a larger image (jpg 313kb)

Your comments and advice are welcome.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

I found an interesting philosophical argument map supporting the claim that science cannot explain everything at:

http://www.optimizelife.com/wiki/Argument_maps

I have presented it slightly differently using Rationale, since I believe the (circled) claim that "It(e) therefore cannot be answered by an appeal to any part of the spatiotemporal universe" is superfluous:

You can download the rationale file here: Download why_is_there_something_rather_than_nothing.rtnl

Mapping an argument step by step

Abortion is not wrong. If it's wrong, then it would be illegal. But, it's not illegal. So, it's not wrong.

Now you may feel there is something wrong with this argument, and if you have experience of logic, argumentation or philosophy, it may be obvious to you what is wrong with it. However, for many people, and in particular children, this argument might carry some weight

One of the best ways to discover the flaws in such an argument is to break it down in to its constituent parts and evaluate those parts.

First, I have to decide what the thesis of the argument is. The thesis of the argument represents what the whole argument is attempting to persuade you of, show or prove.

In this case, the thesis is clearly stated at the beginning of the argument:

I have placed the thesis in a box as the central claim of the argument. Next, I have to decide how the remainder of the argument supports this claim. In this simple argument it is clear that there are two mutually supporting premises for the claim that abortion is not wrong.

I represent the two premises as supporting the thesis by showing them connected to the thesis from below and surrounded by a green (support) box. Since the premises are both required together to support the thesis, they are displayed in the same box.

Now that the argument is a little clearer, I can begin to see if the premises actually support the conclusion (thesis). First, lets think about the premise "If abortion was wrong, then it would be illegal".