Can a debating algorithm shed any light on the nature of debate?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Can a debating algorithm shed any light on the nature of debate?
https://www.cnet.com/news/an-ibm-comput ... mpetition/
Can this kind of experiment help us to analyse what it is that we are doing when we argue the case for a particular political or ethical position? A large part of the process must surely involve defining a goal and then explaining, using empirical evidence and logic, why a particular proposed set of activities are more likely to achieve that goal than some other set of activities. That aspect of debate might be what we would expect a machine to be best at. But anyone who has observed and/or taken part in political debate will know that it is certainly not the whole story. In many cases, it barely features at all. An audience of human beings doesn't just respond to rational evidence-based arguments. Debaters use a huge range of devices including fear, self-interest, tribal loyalty, patriotism, xenophobia, body language, charisma, bluster, showmanship, intimidation, repetition, catchy sound bites, rhymes, alliteration, music, humour, anger, hyperbole, lies, damned lies and statistics to achieve their ends.
Could a computer debater ever learn to use all of these devices? Or would it always simply be a mouthpiece for its computer debater creator?
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: April 9th, 2018, 3:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Franz Kafka
- Contact:
Re: Can a debating algorithm shed any light on the nature of debate?
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Can a debating algorithm shed any light on the nature of debate?
"NEWS" items like this are for the hard-of-thinking.Steve3007 wrote: ↑June 25th, 2018, 6:48 am Recently, it's been reported, a computer "won" a political debate against a human being:
https://www.cnet.com/news/an-ibm-comput ... mpetition/
A computer can have no interest in politics.
All important political debates are not 'winnable' by logic.
"A good leader can engage in a debate frankly and thoroughly, knowing that at the end he and the other side must be closer, and thus emerge stronger. You don't have that idea when you are arrogant, superficial, and uninformed." Nelson Mandela
Politics is not cheap point scoring as the stakes are human values.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Can a debating algorithm shed any light on the nature of debate?
Nothing can be resolved by logic alone except the definition of terminology. But what about a logical/rational argument which appeals to various pieces of empirical evidence? I think political/ethical difference between different people often boil down to disagreements about what is empirically verified as true and what logically follows from what. i.e. they are often not fundamentally irreconcilable differences of worldview, but differences of method.ThomasHobbes wrote:All important political debates are not 'winnable' by logic.
Take, for example, one of the most basic and venerable divisions in political opinion: Left versus Right; big government versus small government; high taxation versus low taxation; publicly funded services versus private enterprise.
In many cases, the two sides of this debate do not fundamentally disagree as to what is important in life. They do not disagree about the underlying goal, even though they may think they do, because they disagree about relatively superficial goals. They disagree as to what actions are most likely to set in chain the sequence of events most likely to achieve that underlying goal.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Can a debating algorithm shed any light on the nature of debate?
Yes they do. What do YOU think is that goal?Steve3007 wrote: ↑June 26th, 2018, 5:16 amNothing can be resolved by logic alone except the definition of terminology. But what about a logical/rational argument which appeals to various pieces of empirical evidence? I think political/ethical difference between different people often boil down to disagreements about what is empirically verified as true and what logically follows from what. i.e. they are often not fundamentally irreconcilable differences of worldview, but differences of method.ThomasHobbes wrote:All important political debates are not 'winnable' by logic.
Take, for example, one of the most basic and venerable divisions in political opinion: Left versus Right; big government versus small government; high taxation versus low taxation; publicly funded services versus private enterprise.
In many cases, the two sides of this debate do not fundamentally disagree as to what is important in life. They do not disagree about the underlying goal,
Throw as much empirical statistics at, say, the abortion debate, but where does it get you? All the underlying criteria are emotionally based.even though they may think they do, because they disagree about relatively superficial goals. They disagree as to what actions are most likely to set in chain the sequence of events most likely to achieve that underlying goal.
It all depends on what you think is important.
And what is important is not superficial.
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Can a debating algorithm shed any light on the nature of debate?
Winning a debate, or rather, declaring a winner in a debate may yield different winners by different judges. A computer vs man debate may win on the logic ticket, or on the eruditeness ticket, or on the cadence and fluency of speech ticket, but not on a convincing-humans ticket.Steve3007 wrote: ↑June 25th, 2018, 6:48 am Recently, it's been reported, a computer "won" a political debate against a human being:
https://www.cnet.com/news/an-ibm-comput ... mpetition/
Can this kind of experiment help us to analyse what it is that we are doing when we argue the case for a particular political or ethical position? A large part of the process must surely involve defining a goal and then explaining, using empirical evidence and logic, why a particular proposed set of activities are more likely to achieve that goal than some other set of activities. That aspect of debate might be what we would expect a machine to be best at. But anyone who has observed and/or taken part in political debate will know that it is certainly not the whole story. In many cases, it barely features at all. An audience of human beings doesn't just respond to rational evidence-based arguments. Debaters use a huge range of devices including fear, self-interest, tribal loyalty, patriotism, xenophobia, body language, charisma, bluster, showmanship, intimidation, repetition, catchy sound bites, rhymes, alliteration, music, humour, anger, hyperbole, lies, damned lies and statistics to achieve their ends.
Could a computer debater ever learn to use all of these devices? Or would it always simply be a mouthpiece for its computer debater creator?
A computer will never win an argument on the side of race equality when judged by a panel of KKK members.
A computer will never win an argument on Marxism's side when the judges are multibillionaires.
A computer will never win an argument on the side of capital punishment when judged by people on death row.
A computer will never win an argument on the side of pipeline-construction or on whale hunting when the jury comprises green party members.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023