AlexanderReiswich wrote:Hello everybody,
I've been working hard these past months on an online application that allows people to evaluate concepts collectively in a methodical, constructive way. As far as I'm aware, it's the first philosophical web 2.0 app
It is now finished and ready to be utilized ! Now, allow me to describe it in more detail...
If you've had more than a few discussions on online boards, you have probably noticed that it can be quite difficult at times to, well, get anywhere.
Sure, forums are great for exchanging thoughts and information freely with other people, but they have no inherent structure, logic or semantical side to them.
It's not rare that the same flawed arguments are repeated over and over and that accurate and intelligent contributions just get lost in all the noise.
Definitions constantly change and are often never clearly defined, new topics are smuggled in and the discussions keep going in circles all the while becoming more and more complicated.
In other words: Forums are just not the right tool for critically examining philosophical (or political, scientific, religious, etc.) concepts. (But I still love them )
That's why I've attempted to create a new kind of system that doesn't have the same issues as an online board (I hope!).
It's called Twigics
Twigics is a kind of simplified, online scientific method that is available to everyone and doesn't require moderators or any kind of super users. Everyone is equal, but it is designed so that the logically sound and relevant content should always surface to the top!
It provides you with an approach for evaluating concepts that makes it extremely easy to see what attributes a concept has, as well as which arguments validate or invalidate these.
It's possible to point out logical fallacies within arguments, but the logical fallacies are also concepts that can be evaluated in the same way as all other concepts ! In other words, it's really flexible and it's up to the collective intelligence of all users how it develops.
What should facilitate the whole process is the fact that people disagree. If you submit a new concept, it will be considered sound until someone comes along and points out a flaw in it. If it turns out that a concept is indeed flawed in some way, the attribute in question will have to be made non-essential, thus changing the definition of the concept towards something more accurate!
But the best way to understand it is simply to try it out! Everything is explained at every step of the process and should be pretty easy to understand. Creating an account takes only a few seconds and you can start right away by adding a new concept or adding content to existing concepts.
Since I can't post links yet, we'll have to wait until I can officially add the link to the site, but feel free to google it or type it in... Here's a hint: it's a com-Domain... ^^
Since this is a community project, I would love to hear any kind of feedback and discuss it with you in more detail! Thank you for your time and interest!!
Who is the god that decrees what is and is not essential - isn't disagreement of concepts the reason for philosophy in the first place?