-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Truth Score
Welcome to a revolutionary concept in argument evaluation - the integration of the Logical Fallacy Score and the Evidence Verification Score. Our approach quantifies the strength of an argument by scrutinizing its logical integrity and empirical validation. The Logical Fallacy Score measures the impact of identified logical fallacies within an argument, while the Evidence Verification Score assesses the degree of independent corroboration, through rigorous methods like blind studies and scenario comparisons. Together, these scores not only elevate the accuracy and rationality of our beliefs but also promise a new era of intellectual discourse. We invite bright minds to join us in coding this vision into reality, unlocking the potential to change how we debate, learn, and grow.
In assessing the strength of an argument, two important scores to consider are the Logical Fallacy Score and Evidence Verification Score. The Logical Fallacy Score reflects the relative performance of sub-arguments that point out a specific logical fallacy used in the top-level argument. Meanwhile, the Evidence Verification Score indicates the degree to which the belief has been independently verified, such as through blind or double-blind studies and the number and similarity of scenarios. By taking into account these scores, we can arrive at more informed and rational beliefs.
Recognizing fallacious arguments is crucial for developing a forum for better group decision-making, creating an evidence-based political party, and for humans to make intelligent group decisions.
To achieve this, we propose using the scientific method of tying the strength of our beliefs to the strength of the evidence. The evidence takes the form of pro/con arguments for human arguments. These arguments are tied to data with logic. Therefore, we will explicitly tie the strength of our belief to the power, or score, of the pro/con evidence.
We will measure the relative performance of pro/con sub-arguments by weighing each argument using a specific logical fallacy. Once a user flags an argument as using a logical fallacy, or if the computer uses semantic equivalency scores to flag an idea as being similar to another idea that has been identified as using a logical fallacy, the site will create a dedicated space for reasons to agree or disagree with the fallacy accusation. The logical fallacy score reflects the relative performance of these accusation arguments, and our argument analysis algorithms will subject these arguments to grouping similar ways of saying the same thing, ranking the different types of truth separate from importance, and linkage (evidence to conclusion linkage).
There are several common types of fallacious arguments that are often used to support conclusions, but they are actually non-sequiturs, meaning they do not logically follow from the premises. Examples of these types of arguments include:
- Ad hominem fallacy: This is when someone attacks the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. For example, saying, "You can't trust anything he says because he's a convicted criminal," does not logically address the argument.
- Appeal to authority fallacy: This is when someone claims something is true simply because an authority figure says it is true without providing any other evidence or reasoning. For example, saying, "Dr. Smith said it, so it must be true," does not logically prove that the argument is sound.
- Red herring fallacy: This is when someone introduces a completely unrelated topic or argument to distract from the original argument. For example, saying, "I know I made a mistake, but what about all the good things I've done for the company?" does not logically address the issue.
- False cause fallacy: This is when someone claims that because one event happened before another, it must have caused the second event. For example, saying, "I wore my lucky socks, and then we won the game, so my socks must have caused the win," does not logically prove causation.
By identifying and avoiding these fallacies, individuals can contribute to a more rigorous and evidence-based decision-making process, which can ultimately lead to a more effective political system and better-informed public opinion. The Logical Fallacy Score allows for the identification of specific fallacious arguments and promotes critical thinking and reasoned discourse.
- Compile a comprehensive list of widely recognized logical fallacies.
- Implement a feature allowing users to mark specific arguments as potentially containing one or more of these logical fallacies.
- Provide a platform for users to present evidence and rational discourse either supporting or contesting the assertion that the flagged argument embodies a logical fallacy.
- Design an automated system capable of identifying and flagging arguments that exhibit similarities to others already marked for logical fallacies.
- Develop a machine learning algorithm tailored to recognize and highlight linguistic patterns and structures commonly associated with logical fallacies.
- Conduct a thorough evaluation of each argument flagged for containing a logical fallacy, assessing the strength and validity of sub-arguments for or against the presence of the fallacy in question.
- Aggregate the findings from these assessments to determine a Logical Fallacy Score, represented as a confidence interval, reflecting the likelihood of the argument containing the identified fallacy.
It's important to note that the Logical Fallacy Score is just one of many algorithms used to evaluate each argument. We will also use other algorithms to determine the strength of the evidence supporting each argument, the equivalency of similar arguments, and more. The Logical Fallacy Score is designed to identify arguments that contain logical fallacies, which can weaken their overall credibility. By assessing the score of sub-arguments that contain fallacies, we can better evaluate the strength of an argument and make more informed decisions based on the evidence presented.
logical_fallacies = ['ad hominem', 'appeal to authority', 'red herring', 'false cause']
argument_scores = {}
def evaluate_sub_argument_score(argument, fallacy, evidence): # Algorithm to evaluate the score of a sub-argument # This should include assessment based on provided evidence # Placeholder for implementation score = 0 # Implement logic to calculate score # ... return score
def evaluate_argument_score(argument, evidence): score = 0 for fallacy in logical_fallacies: sub_argument_score = evaluate_sub_argument_score(argument, fallacy, evidence.get(fallacy, [])) score += sub_argument_score return score
flagged_arguments = {} # Format: {argument: evidence_dict}
Example: flagged_arguments = {"Argument1": {"ad hominem": [evidence1, evidence2], "red herring": [evidence3]}}
similar_arguments = {} # Format: {argument: [similar_argument1, similar_argument2, ...]}
class FallacyDetector: def detect(self, argument): # Implement detection logic # ... return detected_fallacies
fallacy_detector = FallacyDetector()
for argument, evidence in flagged_arguments.items(): argument_score = evaluate_argument_score(argument, evidence) # Determine confidence interval if argument_score < -2: confidence_interval = "Very likely fallacious" elif argument_score < 0: confidence_interval = "Possibly fallacious" elif argument_score == 0: confidence_interval = "No indication of fallacy" elif argument_score < 2: confidence_interval = "Possibly sound" else: confidence_interval = "Very likely sound" # Store results argument_scores[argument] = {'score': argument_score, 'confidence_interval': confidence_interval}
Here is code for YourFallacyDetector:
```Python
import re
import spacy
class EnhancedFallacyDetector:
def __init__(self):
# Load an NLP model from spaCy for contextual analysis
self.nlp = spacy.load("en_core_web_sm")
self.fallacies = {
'ad hominem': ['ad hominem', 'personal attack', 'character assault'],
'appeal to authority': ['appeal to authority', 'argument from authority', 'expert says'],
'red herring': ['red herring', 'diversion', 'irrelevant'],
'false cause': ['false cause', 'post hoc', 'correlation is not causation']
}
self.patterns = {fallacy: re.compile(r'\b(?:%s)\b' % '|'.join(keywords), re.IGNORECASE)
for fallacy, keywords in self.fallacies.items()}
def detect_fallacy(self, text):
results = {}
doc = self.nlp(text)
for sent in doc.sents:
for fallacy, pattern in self.patterns.items():
if pattern.search(sent.text):
results[fallacy] = results.get(fallacy, []) + [sent.text]
return results
With this code, you can call the detect_fallacy method on any text, and it will return a dictionary of detected fallacies and the specific keyword that triggered the detection. For example:
import re import spacy
class ImprovedFallacyDetector:
def __init__(self):
# Initialize spaCy for contextual natural language processing
self.nlp = spacy.load("en_core_web_sm")
# Define common logical fallacies and associated keywords
self.fallacies = {
'ad hominem': ['ad hominem', 'personal attack', 'character assassination'],
'appeal to authority': ['appeal to authority', 'argument from authority', 'expert opinion'],
'red herring': ['red herring', 'diversion', 'distract', 'sidetrack'],
'false cause': ['false cause', 'post hoc', 'correlation is not causation', 'causal fallacy']
}
# Compile regex patterns for each fallacy
self.patterns = {fallacy: re.compile(r'\b(?:%s)\b' % '|'.join(keywords), re.IGNORECASE)
for fallacy, keywords in self.fallacies.items()}
def detect_fallacy(self, text):
# Process the text with spaCy for sentence-level analysis
doc = self.nlp(text)
results = {}
for sent in doc.sents:
for fallacy, pattern in self.patterns.items():
if pattern.search(sent.text):
# Store the sentence text as evidence of the fallacy
results[fallacy] = results.get(fallacy, []) + [sent.text]
return results
detector = ImprovedFallacyDetector()
texts = [ "You can't trust anything he says because he's a convicted criminal.", "Dr. Smith said it, so it must be true.", "I know I made a mistake, but what about all the good things I've done for the company?", "I wore my lucky socks, and then we won the game, so my socks must have caused the win." ]
for text in texts: results = detector.detect_fallacy(text) print(results)
## Future Development Strategy
1. **Expansive and Varied Data Collection**: For the practical training of machine learning models in the system, acquiring a comprehensive and varied dataset is crucial. This dataset should encompass a broad spectrum of logical fallacy examples from diverse fields such as politics, business, and science, and varied media sources, including news articles, social media content, and public speeches.
2. **Incorporation of Field-Specific Insights**: Given the varying prevalence of certain logical fallacies across different domains, integrating specialized knowledge into the algorithms can enhance detection accuracy. For instance, ad hominem attacks are typically more rampant in political arenas than in scientific discourse. Tailoring the system to recognize such domain-specific patterns would significantly improve its effectiveness.
3. **Integration of Human Oversight and Feedback**: Although machine learning algorithms are adept at identifying patterns in extensive datasets, they are not infallible and may overlook subtleties or commit errors. To mitigate this, the system should embrace human intervention and feedback mechanisms. This could involve allowing users to pinpoint overlooked logical fallacies or to correct misidentified instances, thereby refining the system's accuracy.
4. **Ongoing System Enhancement**: The nature of machine learning systems is such that they consistently benefit from iterative refinement and enhancement. This process would entail the continuous aggregation of new data, the fine-tuning of algorithmic approaches, and the assimilation of user feedback. Over time, these efforts would culminate in a more precise and efficient system capable of adeptly pinpointing logical fallacies, thereby contributing to more reasoned decision-making and a better-informed public discourse.