Theory Mapping Modes of Application

ff
There are two main modes of application:

Mode 1: Theory Mapping Debate

This is where two or more parties compete their respective theories against each other. The debating parties together with a moderator form a committee that agrees on the Research Question and the Agreed Facts. Each side then analyses the others maps and identifies areas of incoherence in terms of the three aspects mentioned above. They can also call into question any Background Facts that have been enlisted by either theory for support. These criticisms are approved by the moderator following rules drawn up to ensure consistency in what can and cannot be rated as an incoherency. The moderator then calculates and presents the incoherence scores of each theory, with the lowest scoring theory declared the winner of the first round. Subsequent rounds can be held depending on the debating parties wishes, in which each side tries to reduce their score and increase the score of the opponent.

The debate can be made open to the public or a selected group of people (such as a research network) through the internet, via a website which would display the Agreed Facts, Theory Maps (with and without Objections), and the incoherence scores. The dialogue between committee members could also be recorded on a discussion forum e.g. with a thread set up to record discussions to agree on the wording of each fact. Members of the public can assist the debating parties by sending in suggestions of facts and arguments to strengthen a theory, and suggestions of incoherencies in the other theories.

The Agreed Facts would probably differ somewhat between each debate even though the Research Question remained the same. This is for two reasons:

• Similar interpretation: if two theories share a similar interpretation of a fact, then in order to save time and space on the map, the interpretation can be stated as a fact. For instance, there is debate over the position of the bullet hole in JFK’s upper back, with sources putting it in different places. The majority of evidence seems to be supportive of it being at the sixth cervical vertebra, so if both sides agreed on this, the Agreed Fact would be along the lines of “The bullet to the body of JFK entered his upper back above the shoulder blade at the sixth cervical vertebra and exited…” If they disagreed, then the Agreed Facts would be in the raw form i.e. stating each of the different pieces of evidence regarding the position e.g. JFK’s doctor’s version, the autopsy version, the autopsy artist’s version etc.
• Different facts for different theories: different theories will enlist different facts for support. For instance, different conspiracy theories will focus on facts about different groups e.g. CIA, mafia, Cubans etc.
  

Over time a database of all the relevant facts and their different wordings could be developed on the website that each debate could draw from.


Mode 2: Theory Mapping Competition

This is where one person or organization sponsors a competition to find the most coherent theory that explains a given set of facts. The sponsor would decide the Research Question, the Agreed Facts, and the measurement of the incoherencies. A prize would be available for the most coherent theory submitted by a particular deadline. Participants would submit Theory Maps, including any additional facts they thought were relevant.

Again, the competition can be made open to the public or a selected group of people.


Combination of Debate and Competition

It could be possible to combine a debate with a competition, in which following the debate, the committee of the debating parties becomes the sponsor and opens it up to a competition, using the Agreed Facts of the debate as the starting point. This would be most effective if the debating parties were respected authorities on the issue who could get the discussion off on a good and high-profile footing.
f
f