Math Question

I have a math equation I want to express correctly, but I have been out of college for 10 years and I’m a little rusty.

This is my attempt, but I’m not sure I have the series written correctly:

• n = number of steps an argument is removed from an idea, where a reason to agree is one step removed, but a reason to agree with a reason to agree is two steps. 
• A₁ = Number of reasons to agree (Count as 1 point each, towards the idea)
• D₁  = Number of reasons to disagree (Count as 1 point each, towards the idea)
• A₂ = Number of reasons to agree with reasons to agree or disagree with reasons to disagree (Count as 1/2 point each, towards the idea)
• D₂  = Number of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree or agree with reason to disagree (Count as 1/2 point each, towards the idea)
• and so on

I’m not sure I have enough summation symbols.  If I define A sub 1 as “Number of” can I leave out the extra summation symbols shown in this equation:

Other Factors: Additional Evidence such as Movies, Songs, Expert Opinions

Similar to books, various forms of media like movies (particularly documentaries), songs, or expert opinions can offer support or opposition to different perspectives. For instance, the website Rotten Tomatoes offers scores for movies which can be an indicator of the general consensus about the argument or message a film is putting forward. This data could be integrated into the evaluation of a belief or argument, along with any formal logical arguments presented within the media content.

The Link Score (L): When beliefs are submitted as reasons to support other beliefs, there's a risk of irrelevant arguments being included. For example, someone might claim that the belief "the grass is green" is a reason to believe "the New York Giants will win the Super Bowl." Although the belief that "the grass is green" might have a high agreement score, the relevance or "Link Score" will be close to zero due to the lack of a logical connection.

As this process is refined, certain multiplication factors may need to be applied to avoid giving too much or too little weight to certain factors.

** Credibility can often be gauged by looking at the source of information. For instance, those with a ".edu" email address from the philosophy department of an accredited university can be considered reliable, knowledgeable sources.

• Logical Arguments:
• Multidimensionality of Knowledge: Knowledge and perspectives can come from various sources, not limited to academic texts and discussions. Movies, songs, and expert opinions can provide rich and varied insights, supplementing our understanding.
• Supporting Evidence (data, studies):
• Numerous studies have demonstrated the educational potential of films and music (Marsh, Jackie. "Popular culture in the literacy curriculum: a 'Bourdieuan' perspective." Reading literacy and language (2003): 96-103.)
• Supporting Books:
• "Film as Philosophy: Essays on Cinema After Wittgenstein and Cavell" by Rupert Read and Jerry Goodenough: This book demonstrates the philosophical potential of films.
• "The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century" by Alex Ross: It highlights the historical and cultural insights that can be drawn from music

Other Factors: Stuff, like movies, songs, experts, etc that agaree or disagree

Similar to how I say books can support or oppose different conclusions, movies (often documentaries) can support or oppose different conclusions. Rotten tomatoes gives scores to movies. All of this data could be imported, as well as the formal logical arguments that a movie actually attempts to support or oppose a belief.

L = Link score. When we submit beliefs as reasons to support other beliefs, and give higher scores to conclusions that have more reasons to agree with them, people will try to submit beliefs that don’t really support the conclusion. For instance someone might post the belief that the grass is green as a reason to believe the NY Giants will win the super bowl. The beliefs that the grass is green will receive a high score, but the “Link Score” as will be close to zero.

* As we work this out we may have to apply multiplication factors to not give too much or too little weight to a factor.

** Who has a “.edu” e-mail address from the philosophy department of an accredited university

Other Factors: Up/Down Votes

I think if we tracked the number of up votes and compared it to the number of down votes it might tell us a little about the quality of an argument, or at least its perceived quality.

I think the more information the better. This is the best equation I can come up with for adding points to a belief based on the number of up or down votes. I would love your feedback.

Below is an explanation of each term.

Up/Down Votes

• UV/DV = Up or Down Vote
• #U = Number of Users
• We will have overall up or down votes. We will also have votes on specific attributes like: logic, clarity, originality, verifiability, accuracy, etc.

Other Factors: Books that agree or Disagree

I believe that tracking the number of books suggested as reasons to agree or disagree with a conclusion could help develop algorithms that promote beliefs that have been thoroughly examined and supported.

Here's the best equation I've come up with for adding points to a belief based on the number and quality of books suggested as reasons to support or disagree with a conclusion:

Points = Σ(BS * BLS)

I'd appreciate your feedback on this approach and its potential effectiveness in promoting well-examined ideas.

Below is an explanation of each term:

B = Books that have been said to support or oppose the given conclusion

BS = Book Score, which can take into account the number of books sold, scores given by book reviewers, etc.

BLS = Book Link Score, which evaluates how well a book supports the proposed belief. Each argument that a book supports a belief becomes its own argument, and the book's "linkage score" is assigned points based on the equation provided above.

Other Factors: Incorporating Input from Logic Professors

I once took a course in logic taught by a professor of philosophy, a discipline in which formal logic often plays a crucial role.

My proposal involves quantifying the input of logic professors who "authenticate" the logic of an argument, juxtaposed against those who "contend" with the logic of the same argument. Such data could potentially bolster the credibility of ideas that have been meticulously scrutinized and validated.

Consider this modified equation, using a ratio to add or subtract points from a belief based on the input of logic professors:

Ratio = Number of times a certified logic instructor has authenticated the logic of a given argument (LPV) / Number of times a certified logic instructor has contested the logic of a given argument (LPC).

Using this ratio, if a logic professor opposes a reason that underpins your conclusion, the overall score would decrease proportionately. This is because the action of contesting is twice removed from directly affirming the belief, which is reflected in the ratio.

It's important to note that these equations would be adjusted and fine-tuned over time to improve the site's user engagement and overall performance. Our goal is to create a system that is flexible, responsive, and continually improving based on user interaction and feedback. Your thoughts and suggestions on this proposed approach would be greatly appreciated.


a) Fundamental Beliefs or Principles one must reject to also reject this belief:

• Rejection of Expertise: To disregard the idea of using evaluations from philosophy professors who have taught formal logic means rejecting the concept that individuals who have studied and taught critical thinking and formal logic possess a special skill set that can be used to assess the validity of arguments effectively.
• Rejection of Academic Knowledge: This also entails the rejection of the principle that academia, specifically in the field of philosophy and formal logic, contributes significantly to understanding and assessing arguments.
• Rejection of Objective Assessment: This further implies rejecting the idea that an argument's validity can be objectively analyzed based on established principles of formal logic.

b) Alternate Expressions:#LogicCheckedByAcademics

• #FormalLogicValidation
• "Endorsed by Philosophy Educators"

c) Objective Criteria to Measure the Strength of this Belief:

1. Number of Philosophy Professors who have taught Formal Logic that endorse the argument.
2. Consistency of their evaluation with established principles of formal logic.
3. The acceptance and application of their assessments in resolving disagreements or strengthening arguments.

d) Shared Interests between Those Who Agree/Disagree:

• Both sides likely value logical consistency and sound arguments.
• Both would probably appreciate a fair and objective assessment process.
• Both parties likely want the discussion or debate to contribute to truth and understanding, not merely winning an argument.

e) Key Opposing Interests between Those Who Agree/Disagree (that must be addressed for mutual understanding):

• Those who agree might feel that input from Philosophy Professors who have taught Formal Logic adds credibility and objectivity to the discussion.
• Those who disagree might fear this approach overly privileges academic knowledge, potentially excluding valuable perspectives from non-academics or individuals with practical, rather than formal, understanding of logic.
• For constructive dialogue, it is necessary to acknowledge the value of expert input while ensuring that all meaningful and insightful contributions are given due consideration.

f) Solutions:

• Create a balanced system where validations from philosophy professors who have taught formal logic are one of many factors considered in an argument's strength.
• Incorporate input from a diverse range of experts, not just philosophy academics experienced in formal logic.
• Implement a system that allows users to challenge or question the validations from these philosophy professors, fostering an open dialogue.

1. Logical Arguments:
1. Expertise Principle: Philosophy professors who have taught formal logic have acquired expert knowledge, making them well-suited to evaluate logical coherence in arguments.
2. Supporting Evidence (data, studies):
1. Studies on expertise suggest that experts, due to their training and experience, have deeper knowledge and insights in their areas of specialization (Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual review of psychology, 47(1), 273-305).
3. Supporting Books:
1. "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman: This book, while not directly related to philosophy professors, discusses the differences between expert thinking and intuitive thinking.
4. Supporting Videos (movies, YouTube, TikTok):
1. "Crash Course Philosophy" on YouTube: A video series that provides an introduction to philosophy and logical reasoning.
5. Supporting Organizations and their Websites:
1. The American Philosophical Association (apaonline.org): An organization supporting the work of philosophers and the value of their expertise.
6. Supporting Podcasts:
1. "Philosophy Bites" is a podcast that showcases the insights of contemporary philosophers on a wide range of topics.
7. Unbiased Experts:
1. Professors of Philosophy who have taught formal logic, as their training ideally positions them to be impartial arbiters of logical consistency.
8. Benefits of Belief Acceptance (ranked by Maslow categories):
1. Psychological Needs: Encourages intellectual growth and cognitive satisfaction through engaging with logically sound arguments.
2. Belonging and Love Needs: Facilitates fair and meaningful dialogue, promoting a sense of community.
3. Esteem Needs: Upholds the value of academic knowledge and expertise, contributing to societal respect for intellectual pursuits.
4. Self-Actualization: Supports the pursuit of truth and understanding, key aspects of personal and societal development.

Other Factors: Logic Professors

I had a logic professor. He was in the philosophy department, and he taught a course on logic. Every professor has a few philosophy teachers that teach formal logic.

I think if we tracked the number of logic professors that "certify" the logic of an argument and subtract the number of logic professors that "discount" the logic of an argument, we could use that data to promote ideas that have been more thoroughly examined, and supported.

This is the best equation I can come up with for adding points to a belief based on the number logic professors that support or oppose the logic used in an argument.

I would love your feedback!

Below is an explanation of each term.

• NPA/D = Number of times a certified logic instructor has verified/discounted the logic of a reason to disagree
• Summing “NPA or NPD” would mean that if a logic professor disagreed with a reasons to support your conclusion, that would take away ½ a point, because that action is twice removed.

Other Factors: Books that agree or Disagree

I think if we tracked the number of books that are suggested as reasons to agree with a conclusion, or disagree, we could come up with algorithms that use this data to promote beliefs that have been more thoroughly examined, and supported.

This is the best equation I can come up with for adding points to a belief based on the number of and the quality of each book that is suggested as a reason to support or disagree with a conclusion. 

I would love your feedback!

Below is an explanation of each term.

• B = Books that have been said to support or oppose the given conclusion
• BS = Books Score. Books scores can take into account number of books that are sold, as well as the score given from book reviewers, etc
• BLS = Book link score. You can have a good book, that doesn’t actually support the proposed belief. Each argument that a book supports a belief, becomes its own argument that that its own book “linkage score” that is given points according to the above formula

Other Factors: Up/Down Votes

I think if we tracked the number of up votes and compared it to the number of down votes it might tell us a little about the quality of an argument, or at least its perceived quality.

I think the more information the better. This is the best equation I can come up with for adding points to a belief based on the number of up or down votes. I would love your feedback.

Below is an explanation of each term.

Up/Down Votes

• UV/DV = Up or Down Vote
• #U = Number of Users
• We will have overall up or down votes. We will also have votes on specific attributes like: logic, clarity, originality, verifiability, accuracy, etc.