Revisions of #510
Contributors: Dennis Hackethal
## How to Structure Discussions↵ ↵ Overall, I think the starting point of a discussion isn’t all that important as long as you’re willing to keep correcting errors.↵ ↵ But for those looking for a starting point, you can take inspiration from what I wrote in #502. You can either structure a discussion around a single problem:↵ ↵ > Discussion title: problem↵ > Top-level ideas in the discussion: proposed solutions↵ > Nested ideas: criticisms, counter-criticisms, and further solutions↵ ↵ Or, if the discussion is wider than a single problem, you can treat it as a collection of problems:↵ ↵ > Discussion title: some topic (such as ‘abortion’)↵ > Top-level ideas: problems↵ > Nested ideas: solutions, criticisms and so on↵ ↵ Either way, discussions map onto Popper’s problem-oriented philosophy. If that’s what people want – I’m keeping discussion structures open and flexible in case they don’t.↵ ↵ And, as I wrote: “Note also that revisions act as solutions to problems. So do counter-criticisms, in a way.”↵ ↵ I agree with @tom-nassis that it’s best if discussion titles are problem statements (#506).
How to Structure Discussions
Overall, I think the starting point of a discussion isn’t all that important as long as you’re willing to keep correcting errors.
But for those looking for a starting point, you can take inspiration from what I wrote in #502. You can either structure a discussion around a single problem:
Discussion title: problem
Top-level ideas in the discussion: proposed solutions
Nested ideas: criticisms, counter-criticisms, and further solutions
Or, if the discussion is wider than a single problem, you can treat it as a collection of problems:
Discussion title: some topic (such as ‘abortion’)
Top-level ideas: problems
Nested ideas: solutions, criticisms and so on
Either way, discussions map onto Popper’s problem-oriented philosophy. If that’s what people want – I’m keeping discussion structures open and flexible in case they don’t.
And, as I wrote: “Note also that revisions act as solutions to problems. So do counter-criticisms, in a way.”
I agree with @tom-nassis that it’s best if discussion titles are problem statements (#506).
↓
Credit Popper
## How to Structure Discussions Overall, I think the starting point of a discussion isn’t all that important as long as you’re willing to keep correctingerrors.↵ ↵ Buterrors. That’s a standard Popperian insight.↵ ↵ But for those looking for a starting point, you can take inspiration from what I wrote in #502. You can either structure a discussion around a single problem:16 unchanged lines collapsed
How to Structure DiscussionsOverall, I think the starting point of a discussion isn’t all that important as long as you’re willing to keep correcting errors. That’s a standard Popperian insight.
But for those looking for a starting point, you can take inspiration from what I wrote in #502. You can either structure a discussion around a single problem:
16 unchanged lines collapsed
↓
## How to Structure Discussions Overall, I think the starting point of a discussion isn’t all that important as long as you’re willing to keep correcting errors.That’s a standard Popperian insight.↵ ↵ But(Popper)↵ ↵ But for those looking for a starting point, you can take inspiration from what I wrote in #502. You can either structure a discussion around a single problem:16 unchanged lines collapsed
How to Structure DiscussionsOverall, I think the starting point of a discussion isn’t all that important as long as you’re willing to keep correcting errors. (Popper)
But for those looking for a starting point, you can take inspiration from what I wrote in #502. You can either structure a discussion around a single problem:
16 unchanged lines collapsed