A New Approach to Formal Logic in Decision-Making
Introduction
If you're like me, you know how tough it can be to resolve differences of opinion and conflicts, especially when they involve essential issues or significant people in our lives, such as family. The problem of unresolved or addressed conflict isn't limited to personal relationships; it extends to broader communities and even nations. We often cannot fix our interpersonal problems, get what we need, or work with others to resolve conflicts.
Traditional debates and discussions often fall short. The words we say may avoid our real needs or concerns. We may get distracted trying to win, or if we have been hurt, to also hurt. We can be dishonest with others and even with ourselves. Even if we are open, honest, and trying our best, our attention span, lack of food, and emotional state can prevent progress. A poor choice of words can blow up in our faces and make us lose trust. Once control has been lost, these discussions can quickly devolve into personal attacks and distractions, often fueled by unresolved emotions. It's tempting to sidestep these challenges in our busy lives by surrounding ourselves with like-minded individuals. However, this approach has limits; eventually, you run out of relationships to exit. While some may suggest extreme solutions like national division or civil war, these are far from ideal outcomes.
Fortunately, there's wisdom in the saying, "there's nothing new under the sun." If billions of people began articulating their interests, needs, and perspectives, aided by AI, we could efficiently distill the common concerns of individuals in similar situations. Whether it's families striving to divide chores and enjoy quality time or cities aiming to balance budgets and maintain essential services, our challenges are often universal.
Also, the math of beliefs and debate doesn't work. For example, a typical argument might unfold as follows:
1. You introduce an initial argument: Point A.
2. Someone responds with a counter-argument against A, which we'll label as DA.
3. You counter their argument DA with your own point, termed DDA.
4. They then counter your DDA with another point, which we'll call DDDA.
With each exchange, the conversation drifts further from your original argument. It's no surprise you might feel unheard. You had a dozen more points you wanted to discuss, but the potential topics for discussion expand exponentially with each new statement. The issue isn't that you or your debate partner lack intelligence; rather, the flaw lies in the structure of traditional debate itself.
The conversation often strays from the initial topic in traditional, time-limited debates. Even the most patient and intelligent participants can't address the many potentially valid points that could bolster or undermine the original argument, primarily due to time constraints. These debates are further truncated to fit our limited attention spans or commercial breaks, leading to various counter-arguments. This results in fragmented, repetitive discussions and a lack of depth. Moreover, even if these debates were exhaustive, they would still need a scoring system for comprehensive evaluation. Consequently, the discourse devolves into a disorganized array of points, each begging for systematic assessment and aggregation.
The Promise of Formal Logic
Formal logic offers a more structured and objective approach to argumentation. However, its complexity has made it less accessible for practical, everyday decision-making. Enter Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a 17th-century philosopher who envisioned a "universal calculus" of reasoning known as Calculus Ratiocinator. This system aimed to mechanically determine the validity of arguments, reducing human error and subjectivity. Leibniz's work laid the groundwork for modern formal logic and computational theory.
Leveraging Digital Technology
Thanks to advancements in digital technology, we can now realize Leibniz's dream. We can create an online platform where humans and AI collaborate to identify the assumptions behind any given conclusion, framing them as "pro" arguments. Counter-arguments would also be included as "con" arguments.
Users can post a belief and reasons to support or oppose it. These reasons serve as foundational assumptions, which can then be further divided into sub-assumptions, each with its own pros and cons. The platform allows users to accept or reject individual arguments and to conduct a nuanced cost/benefit analysis, enabling them to balance various interests or priorities.
This may get dull, but I believe we can come together and solve our problems. We just need to communicate better, and this is how we can do it.
Suppose we assign scores to conclusions based on their supporting and opposing arguments and evidence. In that case, grouping similar arguments together is crucial to avoid double-counting. Moreover, we should have distinct scores for different facets of an argument. For instance, arguments can be sorted by their intent: those that question or affirm the truth of a claim should be further categorized based on their logical soundness and the extent of independent verification. We should also assess the weight of pro/con arguments regarding their relevance to the conclusion and importance.
Scoring and Ranking Arguments
We can employ algorithms like Google's now-public-domain PageRank to dynamically score each assumption based on its sub-arguments. This creates a continually evolving framework for rational decision-making that minimizes repetition and maximizes efficiency.
The Role of AI
AI can augment human capabilities in several ways:
- Identifying and flagging logical fallacies, along with explanations.
- Grouping similar arguments to streamline the evaluation process.
- Sourcing and citing relevant evidence, including scientific research, expert opinions, and historical data.
Conclusion
While not a cure-all, this system offers a structured, efficient, evidence-based approach to debate and decision-making. It accommodates the continuous inclusion of new evidence and viewpoints, making it a dynamic asset for rational discourse. By marrying formal logic with contemporary technology, we pave the way for more objective and reasoned decision-making across various life aspects.
