Good point, yet the meaning of “dialectics” has changed a lot through the centuries, and on Wikipedia it currently is “a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments” which quite fits the function of the algorithm.
The first step would be to research whether there is prior art.
“Refutation tree” might be a description that gives a better impression of what it does.
“a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments” which quite fits the function of the algorithm.
The algorithm doesn’t care whether or not the arguments are “reasoned” it cares about whether they have counterarguments.
It’s also not clear that the statements have a truth value to begin with. Appeals about what should be done, are value judgments. The example claims are also ill-defined.
It starts with the question of whether everybody should be vegan and later people make arguments based on them defending that people should eat little meat. Motte-and-bailey is in full effect.
Given the way I have seen the term dialectic be used, calling this algorithm dialetic seems misleading.
There’s no mechanism for synthesis.
Good point, yet the meaning of “dialectics” has changed a lot through the centuries, and on Wikipedia it currently is “a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments” which quite fits the function of the algorithm.
But how would you call it?
The first step would be to research whether there is prior art. “Refutation tree” might be a description that gives a better impression of what it does.
The algorithm doesn’t care whether or not the arguments are “reasoned” it cares about whether they have counterarguments.
It’s also not clear that the statements have a truth value to begin with. Appeals about what should be done, are value judgments. The example claims are also ill-defined. It starts with the question of whether everybody should be vegan and later people make arguments based on them defending that people should eat little meat. Motte-and-bailey is in full effect.