Theory Mapping Pilot test: Causes of climate change

f
Exciting news! The first pilot debate using Theory Mapping is going to be carried out in conjunction with Austhink and the Open University. The subject is the causes of climate change, and the pilot should be finished by the end of April 2009. Since it will be a pilot test, the results will only be released if the debating parties agree. However, it is the start of a process that will resolve the controversial debate over the causes of climate change by demonstrating which theory can really provide the most coherent explanation of the facts - is it due to human activity as the establishment claims, or is it more complicated than that, as the climate sceptics argue? If you feel strongly about climate change one way or the other, then why not join one of the debating teams? Please contact me for more information.


What?

The details of the debate are as follows:

Topic: 'What is the cause of climate change since 1950?'.

Objectives: the main objectives of the debate are:

• Agreement on the facts: a table of facts about climate change will be drawn up that both sides agree to. This will not only pave the way for the public Theory Mapping debate (see below), but can be used by anyone as a genuinely neutral account of how the world's climate is changing and what is already known for sure about what is behind it.
  
• Develop the first Theory Maps of each side: each Map will provide the clearest and most comprehensive account of each sides argument, and will feed into a public Theory Mapping debate (see below) that will identify which theory can provide the most coherent explanation of the facts. A very early draft of a Theory Map of the anthropogenic case (with some possible Agreed Facts) is here. This is based on a quick reading of the IPCC AR4 report. Objections in red flag up areas that need more work.
• Evaluation of the Theory Mapping method: an independent evaluation will be carried out by Anna De Liddo from the Knowledge Media Institute (KMI) of the UK's Open University. For some of the key issues that will be evaluated, see this draft evaluation framework.

Participants: this would be between a proponent of the view that human activities are the main cause (anthropogenic theory) and a sceptic, possibly with teams providing them with support.

Facilitator: Strahan Spencer, from whatbeliefs.com.

Public access: given that the debate is a pilot, the maps and relative scores will only be publicly released if both parties agree.

Sponsorship: this debate is being sponsored by Austhink, creators of bCisive, currently the best commercial-grade argument mapping software in the world.

Timing: the debate will run during March and April 2009.


Why?

I think that climate change is a good topic to pilot test Theory Mapping for the following reasons:

1. ESSENCE initiative:
The global internet dialogue and debate experiment ESSENCE (E-Science/Sensemaking/Climate Change) is testing different computerised methods for facilitating debate about climate change. This can provide a good framework for identifying the value of Theory Mapping.

2. Problems with the debate:
From an official perspective the debate about to what extent global warming is occurring and is caused by human activities is now over, and the focus should be on deciding on an appropriate international policy response. However, there would still seem to be significant pockets of climate scepticism. For instance, the Climate Sceptics political party was etablished in Australia in February 2009, strongly denying that global warming is caused by human activities. Some of the reasons for this continued difference of opinion include:

• Lack of an objective method for selecting theories: Theory Mapping is based on the view that in areas where controlled experiment is not possible (and so theories cannot be falsified using the scientific method), society currently lacks a method for selecting the best theories. This applies to climate change since, as the IPCC AR4 2007 report points out, a controlled experiment cannot be done on the world's climate! (AR4 Chap 9, p668). Theory Mapping provides such a method, in which the public Theory Mapping debate will result in a clear ranking of which theories provide the most coherent explanation of the facts about climate change. This is therefore an opportunity for the anthropogenic theory to conclusively demonstrate that it is the best, and hence bring closure to the issue. But it is also an opportunity for the sceptics to show that their preferred explanation for global warming is equally if not more coherent, and so greatly increase their credibility.
• Different views over levels of scientific proof: it is argued by some sceptics that the degree of certainty is not high enough to warrant action. A key benefit of Theory Mapping is to uncover different underlying assumptions and require that they be coherently justified, so a Theory Mapping Debate may be able to resolve this issue.
• Disagreement over the 'facts': each side quote facts to support their view that the other side disagrees on e.g. sceptics often challenge conventional scientific estimates of how important carbon dioxide is compared to other greenhouse gases. Theory Mapping requires that for a fact to be given as evidence for a theory, it must be first agreed between both sides. If they cannot reach agreement, they then unpack the 'fact' into its different sources until they hit the 'raw' facts that are publicly verifiable and so cannot be disagreed over e.g. that scientific study A using method S concluded levels of carbon dioxide at Y, while study B using method T concluded levels of X. Each side then needs to come up with a coherent interpretation of those studies that fits their overall case e.g. if the sceptic disagrees with the conclusion of study B, he/she must mount a coherent attack on the method T that they used.
• Different interests: it may be that both sides of the debate have different vested interests, which makes agreement harder. In scoring theories in a completely objective way, Theory Mapping can rise above this.

3. High-profile: as a high profile issue it will be easier to find people interested in participating, and easier to get funding for the public debate (see below).

4. Academic: much of the debate over climate change is between qualified scientists, and so this is a good test of how well Theory Mapping can be used to improve the efficiency of academic debates.


When can the debate be made public?

If the first pilot is successful, I would seek funding for a full public Theory Mapping Debate with high profile scientists on both sides, ideally before the United Nations Climate Change conference in Dec 2009. This would later be opened up for public participation as a Theory Mapping Competition to find the most coherent explanation of the facts (for the difference between a Theory Mapping Debate and Competition, see the post Modes of Application). As a result of this process, it will be possible to resolve the debate over the causes of climate change so that all attention can be focused on the policy implications.

f

Problems that Theory Mapping solves

f
The value of Theory Mapping is in solving two key problems that plague any debate between people holding to different theories:

• Lack of clear communication: much time is wasted in debates because neither side fully appreciates the position of the other. This may be broken down into three aspects. Firstly, each side basing their arguments on implicit assumptions that even they may not be consciously aware of. Theories are like icebergs, in which most of the structure lies below the surface in the form of implicit assumptions. If these assumptions are not exposed there is no hope of properly understanding each theory and resolving the debate. Secondly, lack of clear expression from each side of their ideas and arguments. And thirdly, neither side paying enough attention to really understand the other's position. Theory Mapping addressing all of these aspects. The first two are dealt with by using Argument Maps which ensures complete clarity of the arguments and that all assumptions are uncovered. The third is dealt with by providing a process which requires each side to study the other's position in detail.
• Lack of an agreed truth test: we would say that it was crazy to have a race without an agreed course and finishing line. Everyone would either run in different directions and claim themselves to be the winner, or simply not bother competing. Yet amazingly that is the situation we are in when it comes to competitions between theories, particularly outside the physical sciences where controlled experiments are generally not possible. Beyond a vague requirement that theories fit the facts, there is no clear procedure to be followed to ensure that theories are trying to explain the same thing and can be easily compared (the course) and no objective measure of which theory fits the facts best and is hence most likely to be true (the finishing line). As in the race analogy, this not only results in massive inefficiency as people's incentives are not aligned with the objective of identifying the most accurate theories, but also reduces people's participation in debates since their accepted worldview is never objectively challenged. Theory Mapping therefore provides rules to ensure the comparability of theories, and an objective quantitative truth test based on the latest thinking in Epistemology.

f

Theory Mapping FAQs

f
The following questions are answered:

• What is Theory Mapping?
• Are there example Theory Maps I can look at?
• What is the vision for Theory Mapping?
  
• Why Theory Mapping?
• Where can Theory Mapping be used?
• What are the key objections to Theory Mapping?
• Has Theory Mapping been tested?
• How to implement Theory Mapping?
• How can I help?
• Why the change in name?
  

What is Theory Mapping?

Theory Mapping is a new and potentially revolutionary method to improve the quality of theories that society uses. It may be described in terms of its Features, Process and Modes of Application:

• Features: it consists of the unique combination of five features: 1) Argument Mapping; 2) Ability to map complex theories; 3) Comparability of Theory Maps; 4) Quantitative test of the truth; and 5) Web-based.

• Process: it consists of the following steps: 1) State the Research Question; 2) Collection of Facts; 3) Draft Theory Map to fit the facts; 4) Measurement of coherence; 5) Iteration of previous stages to increase coherence.
  
• Modes of application: the two main modes for which it can be most effectively used are: 1) Theory Mapping Debate, in which two or more sides together agree on the facts to be explained and try to compete to provide the most coherent explanation of the facts; and 2) Theory Mapping Competition, in which one organisation sponsors the competition and specifies the facts to be explained, and anyone is free to enter Maps providing the most coherent explanation of them.

Are there example Theory Maps I can look at?

Yes, the following two maps were written using the bCisive argument mapping software. They are zip files, so you will need to extract them first. Then open the html file to see the map. This gives read-only access. To edit you need to buy the software or get a free trial.

• Example Theory Map: Lone Gunman Theory for 'Who shot JFK?' (most advanced);
  
• Example Theory Map: Anthropogenic Theory for 'What is the cause of climate change since 1950?' (very draft stage)
  

They are only drafts to help to stimulate thought in preparation for the pilot debates. The red Objection boxes highlight the key areas of incoherence. The blue boxes contain the titles of Agreed Facts, the details of which can be found in the Agreed Facts excel spreadsheet (accessed by clicking on the link in the Situation box at the top).

Alternatively, if you just want simple Pdfs without the hassle of zip files (but minus the linked spreadsheets), click here: JFK map Pdf; Climate change map Pdf.


What is the vision for Theory Mapping?

The vision is to end up with a website containing league tables of competing theories in every area of human thought. Visitors to the website can either build up their belief system by choosing the highest scoring theories, or get involved in online Theory Mapping Debates or Competitions to try to raise the ranking of their own preferred theories. These Debates and Competitions would be sponsored by various organisations, including government research funding agencies in recognition of the efficiency of the method in effectively harnessing the world's collective intelligence.


Why Theory Mapping?

For those areas of inquiry which are not amenable to controlled experimentation, Theory Mapping enables the generation, communication, critique, refinement and selection of theories better than other means of debate e.g. academic journals, face-to-face debate, reports, discussion boards, blogs etc. It does this by solving two key problems that plague debates between different theories: lack of clear communication; and lack of an agreed test of the truth. The analogy is of blind people running a race without a agreed course and an agreed finishing line - the result is pretty inefficient! Theory Mapping provides the glasses (Theory Maps), the course (a clear process) and the finishing line (agreed truth test).

For more information see the following:

• Argument Map of the case for Theory Mapping: lays the case out very logically! Click the link to download, unzip and open the html file to see the map.
  
• Benefits of its features: each of its five features brings particular benefits to the table. See the FAQ What is Theory Mapping? for links to posts on each of the features, each of which includes an explanation of the benefits.

Where can Theory Mapping be used?

Theory Mapping can be applied in the following areas (click on the titles below for more information):

• World views/belief systems/ideologies: allows the possibility of a genuine debate between world views that all sides can sign up to, allows people to decide between world views on a rational basis, and improves mutual respect between world views;
• Academic research: enabling anyone in the world to contribute their ideas and knowledge to academic debates;
• Intelligence analysis: combining the strengths of both Analysis of Competing Hypotheses and Hypothesis Mapping for developing reliable theories out of a mass of evidence.
• Theology: a tool to allow the theologians of any religion to identify the most coherent interpretation of their holy books and traditions.
• Education: Theory Mapping can be used to assist in the teaching of any theory.
• Epistemology: researching the results of Theory Mapping can help to resolve debate about the structure of knowledge between Foundationalism and Coherentism.

What are the key objections to Theory Mapping?

Sounds too good to be true? For my responses to some possible objections see:

• Objection: People not interested in rational argument;
  
• Objection: Test of the truth is too weak;
  
• Objection: High risk of deadlock;
• Objection: Too complicated;
  
• Objection: Bad communication tool.
  

Has Theory Mapping been tested?

Not yet, but I am currently working on the following pilot tests:

• Pilot test: Causes of climate change: a way to test how well Theory Mapping can improve the efficiency of debates within academia. In association with the Open University and sponsored by Austhink. Should be completed by April 2009.
  
• Pilot test: JFK assassination: a way to test how well Theory Mapping can improve the efficiency of debates between different world views.
  

How to implement Theory Mapping?

Some of the issues involved in acheiving the vision for Theory Mapping are covered in the following posts:

• Organisation and Funding: what kind of organisation can best promote Theory Mapping, and how can it be financed?
• Software: what software development is needed to support Theory Mapping?
• Website: what kind of website is needed to support Theory Mapping?

How can I help?

• Comment: I really welcome your feedback both positive and negative. Please add your comments to the most relevant post and I will do my best to reply and/or incorporate your views.
• Participate: if you have strong views on either climate change or JFK's assassination then you are very welcome to get involved in the pilot tests as a participant. Or if you would like to help set up a debate on another topic let me know.
  
• Support: if you have good IT skills I would appreciate help in setting up the Theory Mapping website!
• Spread the word! if you think that Theory Mapping is an exciting idea, then let others know about this site.
  

I can be contacted at strahanspencerATgmail.com.


Why the change in name?

In previous posts I have called the method Belief Mapping, but now believe that Theory Mapping is a more accurate description, since what distinguishes it from other visual argumentation approaches (such as Argument Mapping, Concept Mapping, Issue Mapping etc.) is that it is specifically about the visualization and evaluation of theories.
f
f

Objection: People not interested in rational argument

f
Objection:

People are generally not interested in deciding on their beliefs rationally, and so would not be interested in participating in Theory Mapping, and would not be influenced by the results. This may be for various reasons:

• Meaning and value: their existing beliefs provide meaning to their lives. For instance, I have heard it argued that conspiracy theorists gain a sense of meaning from their mission to uncover conspiracies, and so would strongly resist any evidence to the contrary.
• Perceived self-interest: their existing beliefs may be more convenient. For instance, I have heard it argued that one reason for scepticism about global warming is because it is an 'inconvenient truth' which would require making sacrifices. Cognitive dissonance theory also argues that we have inertia against changing our behaviour, so if information comes in which is inconsistent with our behaviour our first response is to try to dismiss the information (cognitive dissonance theory is about psychological discomfort that is caused by inconsistency within our beliefs and actions).
  

Responses:

1. Number of irrational people overestimated
From talking to people on both sides of a debate, I find that both like to portray the other side as not open to rational debate. For instance, atheists see Christians as irrational, while Christians see atheists as irrational! This is because up until now there has not been a method to allow debates to be conducted efficiently, and so people get frustrated when trying to engage others in dialogue. Theory Mapping can solve this problem.

2. Theory Mapping would increase people's incentive to think rationally
Theory Mapping will provide objective evidence about the incoherency of particular theories and world views, which will be hard to ignore. This will create much higher cognitive dissonance than other methods of debate, and so will force people to either change their beliefs or engage in the debate to defend them.

3. Those who genuinely are not interested in rational argument are not important
Yes, there will always be some people who are not interested in logical argument. But by not being willing to engage in a rational debate (or if they do engage, not being willing to play by the rules) they would be shown for who they are and hence marginalised.
f

Objection: Poor communication

f
Objection:

Well-written prose is a better way of communicating complex theories than Theory Mapping, for the following reasons:

• Visual element adds confusion: people have different levels of visual-spatial ability and so many people will find Theory Maps difficult to process. One friend has talked to me of his mind 'shutting down' when he comes across a complex diagram. Although it is true that in some cases "a picture can paint a thousand words", this is not the case with Argument Mapping since the space on the page does not correspond to a conceptual dimension, unlike with a graph for instance.
  
• Theory Maps too big and complicated: a Theory Map of a complex theory would be be very large and unweildy. Even to get an overview of the key reasons at the top would require a lot of navigation around.

To improve the communication of theories it would therefore be more effective to focus on improving how well prose is written.

Responses:

1. Prose is complementary not a substitute
At the beginning of the post Introducing Theory Mapping, it is stated that one of the problems that Theory Mapping is trying to solve is 'Lack of clear communication' between sides in a debate. However, this is broken down into three particular aspects: a) not communicating assumptions; b) lack of clear expression of ideas and arguments; and c) people not paying enough attention. Whereas the objection seems to be focusing on a fourth aspect (d)), which is purely about the means of communication. Points a), b) and d) can all be given as advantages that Argument Mapping has over ordinary prose (see the post on Argument Mapping), but the case for Theory Mapping only needs to rest on a) and b). This is because prose may be seen as complementary to Theory Mapping e.g. you construct the Theory Map first to uncover the assumptions and gain greater clarity over the ideas and arguments, which then enables you to write a summary in prose to communicate it in a user-friendly way.

2. Argument Maps may be a clearer means of communication than prose
Since Argument Maps can lay out the structure of an argument in a much clearer way than prose and can ensure that rhetoric and extraneous information is removed, it can be argued that they can be clearer than prose under the following conditions:

• Good software: this can make them much easier and fun to read e.g. see aMaps for an example of how to present them in a visually arresting way.
  
• Argument Map literacy: it has been pointed out by Simon Buckingham Shum (here) that with regard to argument visualization tools we need “a new literacy in being able to read and write in the new medium, and a new fluency in using these conversational tools in appropriate ways in different contexts.” As argument mapping becomes more widely used, so this literacy will develop.

f

Theory Mapping Truth Test

f
What?

A test is applied to the Theory Maps to assess which theory has the highest probability of being true. This test is the coherent explanations of facts.

Why?

There are a number of benefits to having a test of the truth:

• Ease of theory selection: Theory Mapping only deals with theories concerned with matters of truth not value, where truth is defined as the accurate prediction of sense experiences (see the post Truth - what is it? for a justification of this) i.e. it is only concerned about what 'is' rather than what 'ought' to be. Theories must therefore be selected primarily according to their relatively probability of being true. The theory which scores the best is not proven to be true, but is the most rational to act on given our current knowledge of the facts and the range of theories available.
  
• Correct incentives: if you have an effective test of the truth that everyone can agree to, and there are rewards gained from a theory scoring well (whether in terms of social esteem or money), you have a very powerful focusing of human intellectual energy since everyone's incentives are aligned with finding the truth. The scientific community has this as a result of the scientific method, but many other areas of intellectual endeavour do not. As a result, incentives are distorted, with people focusing on gaining esteem or money directly in ways that either waste time (e.g. academics focusing on writing papers to impress or trying to ruin each others reputations), or are downright damaging (e.g. misinformation and fraud). For how this applies to particular areas, see Theory Mapping and World Views, and Theory Mapping and Academic Research.
  

In terms of why I am suggesting the coherent explanation of facts as the truth test in Theory Mapping, see the following posts: Truth – how to find it?, Coherent explanation of the facts, and Theory Mapping and Epistemology.

How?

There are three key parts involved in the coherence test (to understand this you should first read about Stages 1, 2 and 3 in the Process of Theory Mapping):

1. Explanatory power
This is how well the theory is able to explain and fit the Agreed Facts. The primary purpose of a theory in Theory Mapping is to give an account of reality that can explain and fit our observations of it as represented by the Agreed Facts. I would suggest that the best way to measure this, is to require that every Agreed Fact be ‘explained’ by the theory in at least one of three ways:

• Provide an answer to the Research Question, which will explain a large number of the facts automatically;
• Use the Agreed Fact as evidence in support of an argument, since the argument will also explain the Fact;
• Provide a separate explanation for any Agreed Facts that have not been covered by the other two methods. This is most likely to be the case for Agreed Facts that support competing theories e.g. in the JFK case, the evidence for conspiracy.

The measure is then simply to go through the table of Agreed Facts that has been constructed in Step 2 and count how many that are not explained in any of these three ways.

If some Agreed Facts are considered to be more important than others (e.g. for the JFK case if physical evidence is considered more reliable than eyewitness evidence), a weighted sum could be taken, with the weights varying according to the level of importance.

In the map of the Lone Gunman Theory, 3 facts are highlighted that do not have adequate explanations, which are some of the facts put forward in support of a conspiracy (I am sure that some people have come up with explanations, but I have not put them in for illustrative purposes).

2. Epistemic justification
This is how well justified the theory is as being true, in terms of logically valid arguments grounded in either Agreed Facts (which are directly related to the Research Question) or Background Facts (which are not).

This would be analysed by looking at the Theory Map and highlighting:

• Explanations or Reasons/premises that were not supported by logically valid arguments;
• Reasons/premises that were not supported by Agreed Facts or Background Facts.
  

The number of incoherencies would then be added up to get the measure. For instance, for the map of the Lone Gunman Theory, 8 premises are identified as not being adequately supported, with Objections attached to them (again, I am sure that stronger justifications do exist, this is just for illustration).

If some reasons/premises are considered to be more important than others because the theory is more dependent upon them, a weighted sum could be taken, with the weights varying according to the number of arguments that each premise supports.

3. Internal consistency
This is whether there are any explanations, reasons/premises that are logically inconsistent with each other. This would again be analysed by looking at the Theory Map, highlighting and counting the inconsistencies.

No areas of inconsistency are identified in the map of the Lone Gunman Theory.

Incoherence Score
The overall measure (or Incoherence Score) of the Theory Map is then presented as a combination of the three numbers. For instance, with the JFK Theory Map for the Lone Gunman Theory, the incoherence score would be 3:8:0 i.e. 3 facts not adequately explained, 8 premises without adequate justification, and no inconsistencies.

The Incoherence Scores of the competing theories would then be compared, with the lowest scoring theory seen to be the one with the highest probability of being true. This does not amount to proof that it is true, just that it would be the most rational theory to act on given our current knowledge of the facts and the range of theories available.

Whether these three numbers could be combined into an overall number is something that would need to be worked on. Any measure should ensure that it does not create perverse incentives, and can be agreed upon by all participants. For instance, I was previously thinking of taking the total percentage of coherent beliefs in the system as the measure (which I called the Coherence Quotient, CQ), since it could combine all three scores into one. However, this would be very susceptible to manipulation, since you could reduce the impact of a given number of incoherencies on the CQ measure simply by inflating the total number of beliefs in the system.
f

Comparability of Theory Maps

f
What?

Theory Maps about competing theories can be easily compared.

Why?

Two reasons:

• Ease of communication: by following common conventions it easy to read and understand them.
  
• Ease of selection: comparability allows a common test for the truth to be applied to allow one to select theory that has the greatest probability of being true.

How?

Theory Maps for competing theories have to follow common rules, which include:

• Layout conventions: see the Process of Theory Mapping.
  
• Stick to the facts: evidence to support arguments can only come from an agreed set of facts, with rules concerning what constitutes a fact and what information should be provided about the fact (see Stage 2: Collection of Facts in Process of Theory Mapping) .
  
• Explaining counter-evidence: each theory must provide explanations of the facts used to support competing theories (see Stage 3: Draft Theory Map to fit the facts in Process of Theory Mapping).

f

Ability to map complex theories

What?

Changes are made to the way that Argument Mapping is normally done to enable one to visually display complex theories clearly and reveal their underlying structure. See Theory Mapping and Epistemology for a brief discussion of the structure of knowledge.


Why?

In outlining complex theories, there are likely to be premises that support more than one argument. For instance, a conspiracy theory is likely to have premises about the extent to which one can trust government that will be repeatedly called upon in justifying arguments for not taking official evidence at face value. The standard practice in Argument Mapping is to keep strictly to a hierarchical approach in which arguments are ‘trees’ where the branches radiate outwards and never connect to each other. So if a premise is used to support more than one argument, it is simply duplicated. The key reason for this is aesthetic, in order to prevent having lines crossing over boxes (e.g. see the article ‘Argument Mapping and Analysis of Competing Hypotheses’ by Tim van Gelder here). It can also make an argument easier to read, since all of the premises are close together. This makes sense for presenting simple arguments, but for Theory Mapping it is better to put each premise in only one place, since: a) any premise has to be justified, and it would be confusing and space-consuming to have to duplicate the justifications too; b) for the measurement of coherence, a premise should only be counted once; and c) if a premise is used in more than one argument, it is good to make it explicit so that the structure of the theory can be more clearly seen, and to assist in weighting premises according to their importance to the theory.

How?

I suggest that the best way to do this while minimizing cross-cutting lines and maximizing clarity, is for a Theory Map to consist of different layers of hierarchical trees (rather than a potentially messy web of connections). The first top layer is for the argument trees justifying reasons and premises that are only used once. The second layer is for any premises that are used twice or more in the first layer. The third layer is for any premises that are used twice or more in the second layer, and so on. The premises and arguments in the lowest layer would therefore be the most fundamental, at the centre of the theory or belief system.

The premises at the top of the second layer would be linked to the arguments in the first layer by lines which would run down the sides of the trees, and so avoid crossing over any boxes. Functionality could also be provided in the software so that if you click on the top of the argument in the first layer, the line down to the premise in the second layer and the premise itself would be highlighted (such as you have with cell formulas in Excel). So it would still be easy to read the argument.

As experience is gained from Theory Mapping about the structure of theories, and software is improved, it may be that even better ways can be developed for presenting maps e.g. where the software automatically structures the map to fit the structure of the theory.
f

Argument Mapping

What?

Argument Mapping is the visual representation of the structure of an logical argument, where premises and conclusions are placed in boxes connected by arrows, such as in the following:

This was done using the bCisive argument mapping software, where the top level conclusion is called a 'Contention', and any arguments or premises supporting it are labelled 'Reasons'. Reasons can either be on their own or part of compound arguments consisting of various co-premises, as shown on the left. There are many different types of box you can have in an argument map, but in the version I use for Theory Mapping, it is kept as simple as possible to just the types of box shown above. In Theory Mapping, every Reason must be supported either by another Reason or by a 'Fact' which is empirical evidence agreed between the debate participants (rather than just what one person considers as 'evidence').

Although I came up with the idea for argument mapping myself a couple of years ago, it turns out to have quite a long history. This is not surprising given how useful it is as a tool to assist human reasoning. Indeed, what is more surprising is why it has not taken off earlier - perhaps because of the lack of software to facilitate it.

Interest in Argument Mapping is now growing rapidly as a way to augment human reasoning for business, personal, academic and educational use, with a number of software applications developed to facilitate its use e.g. bCisive, Rationale, Inspiration, Webspiration, aMap.

A number of websites have also been set up to facilitate debates using collaborative argument maps or text-based versions e.g. Debategraph, Cohere, Deliberatorium, Truthmapping.com, Argunet.

For more information about Argument Mapping, a good place to start is the Austhink website.

Theory Mapping applies the tool of Argument Mapping specifically for the generation, communication and selection of theories (for how this is done, see the other features of Theory Mapping, and the Process of Theory Mapping). This means that it can effectively complement the above online debate websites which are primarily debating about what 'ought' to be done, rather than what 'is'. Being clear about the current situation or best model to describe reality, is a necessary first step before one can make predictions about the future and identify and agree on what action to take.

Why?

Mapping a complex argument has the following potential benefits:

• Clarity of thought: mapping encourages us to express thoughts and their interrelationships much more precisely than we usually do, either when thinking alone or debating with others. By stating claims simply and unambiguously, and by having to draw lines of inference between such claims, we understand the precise nature of the argument much better.
• Uncovering hidden assumptions: having to use logically valid arguments requires that any implicit assumptions are made explicit. Furthermore, requiring that every premise be justified requires continually asking ‘Why is this true?’, leading to uncovering layers of arguments and assumptions that were lying beneath the surface of whatever argument you started with.
• Clear communication: once one is used to reading argument maps and the software is user friendly, they can arguably communicate complex arguments more effectively than prose. The hierarchical structure of argument maps allows the reader to see instantly the ‘gist’ of the argument at the top level of the map. The reader can then drill down the map to see as much detail as they want. Furthermore, all rhetoric and extraneous information is stripped away to only convey the essential logic of a case.
• Effective evaluation: it is easier to identify and comment on weak areas in an argument, whether in terms of the logical structure of the argument, or the justification of the premises. This can be done by inserting Objections into the map, such as the red Objection given in the example map above. Such Objections also need to be supported with reasons and evidence, and can be rebutted.
  

Furthermore, conducting a debate by drafting argument maps of the issues not only benefits from the above advantages over traditional means of debate (verbal, email or internet discussion forums), but also has the following benefit:

• Focus: digression both intentional and unintentional is prevented, since any point has to be addressed to a part of the argument (see the above argument map debating websites for more information about this).

It should be mentioned however, that these benefits are only 'potential'. Given that it is still a relatively new tool, there is currently a lack of empirical research into its effectiveness.
f

Theory Mapping Website

f
The website would include the following:

• Theory Mapping software: to allow you to read, create and modify Maps;
• League tables of theories: for every Research Question, these would give the top scoring theories. Anyone visiting could either accept the ranking and decide to believe the winning theory, or take issue with it and participate in a Debate or Competition to promote their preferred theory.
  
• Discussion Boards: for each Research Question, these would contain a thread for each area of Agreed Facts in which the precise wording of the facts would be discussed by the debating parties and interested onlookers. Incoherencies within each theory would also be discussed, with the Discussion Board recording what was agreed.
  
• Libraries of Maps: libraries of Theory Maps searchable by Research Question, theory, author etc.
  
• Database of Agreed Facts: any facts that were agreed in Debates or Competitions would be stored here, so that they can be referred to and used in the future. This database could be seen as similar to Wikipedia, except that all the content is divided into user-friendly units (facts) that can be easily used in Theory Mapping e.g. facts can be easily downloaded and dragged into Maps to support theories.
  
• Personal profile: where you can bookmark your favourite theories, and get an email notification if the league table ranking of them changes.

Theory Mapping Software

f
The application can either be developed from an existing Argument Mapping software, or developed from scratch. The former is probably most efficient, since the changes required would not be that large.

The best Argument Mapping software currently available is bCisive, which already has a Hypothesis Testing mode that can be used. Although many argument visualisation softwares have the boxes and arrows to allow argument mapping, a key advantage of bCisive is that much of the construction and positioning of boxes and arrows is done automatically. This makes it much faster to use. For instance, if you want to insert a new reason box into the map, you just drag it in, and the layout of the map is automatically adjusted. Whereas if you want to use normal box and arrow software like Inspiration/Webspiration, Compendium, or cMapTools, you have to manually move all the other boxes out of the way first to create space. This is very time-consuming when you are dealing with a large map.

The key modifications to bCisive that are needed to make Theory Mapping sufficiently user-friendly to gain widespread use would be (in order of importance):

• Web-based: bCisive is currently in the process of being made web-based.
• Add a ‘Facts panel’: Agreed Facts and Background Facts would be inputted into this in manually (or transferred from a database on the website once this is developed), from which they can be easily dragged onto the map (similar to how different boxes can be dragged onto the map from the Building Panel). bCisive already has a ‘Fact’ box that can be used. When dragged onto a map, only the title of the fact would be shown inside the box (given how long some facts may be), but hovering over the map would show the full text.
• Notes: allow them to link to two boxes, so that inconsistencies between explanations and theories can be highlighted.
• Reasons that support more than argument: place these automatically in a layer below the other argument trees, with lines linking them to the arguments. Before this is developed, they can be placed below manually, with a reference to them placed in the top layer so that it is clear to the reader.
  
• Incoherence score: automatic calculation of the score based on Objections placed in the Theory Map and the Facts Panel.

Equally, a number of features in bCisive could be taken out in order to simplify the interface e.g. most of the content of the Building Panel and the Text Panel.
f
f

Theory Mapping Organisation and Funding

f
Organisation

An organization (or project within an existing organization) would need to be set up to run Theory Map Debates and Competitions.

Running Theory Map Debates and Competitions would consist of the following:

• Maintaining the website;
  
• Moderating Debates and Competitions according to a set of rules (this could be done by volunteers once the basic rules are established).
• Publicising Debates and Competitions.

Funding

The organisation would need money to ensure that the Theory Mapping tool is continually improved, while keeping it free for members of the public to use. Some potential sources of revenue could include:

• Seed funding: either private or public.
• Sponsorship of Debates: high profile Theory Map debates could be sponsored by either private or public entities, with the company charging a fee for this;
• Commission fee for Competitions: for Theory Map competitions, the company could charge a percentage of the prize money, payable upon successful completion of the competition;
• Online advertising: if Theory Mapping really takes off, it would have a high level of traffic;
• Public donations: since it is free to use, people may wish to contribute towards the cost of providing it.

f

Theory Mapping Pilot Test: Who Shot JFK?

f
Why choose the JFK assassination debate?

The debate about 'Who shot JFK?' may seem like a strange subject to choose to pilot test Theory Mapping, but actually they are a number of reasons why it would make an ideal test case:

• About a valid issue: both sides of the debate do have coherent arguments that should be respected, and many see the assassination as a turning point in American history. In particular. the JFK assassination has given rise to the modern form of conspiracy theories that some academics argue are based on sophisticated analyses of the forces at work in a modern globalised world. For instance, Peter Knight, a Senior Lecturer in American Studies at the University of Manchester, and author of the book The Kennedy Assassination writes that "It's arguable, therefore, that Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories are no longer necessarily the sign of crackpot, delusional thinking that borders on clinical paranoia...The public support for the findings of Kennedy assassination critics also suggests that conspiracy theories have moved from the fringe to the mainstream of American society" (p.98,99) Indeed, the vast majority of Americans believe in some form of conspiracy theory about the assassination.
• Current lack of progress: a number of commentators believe that the JFK assassination debate, although pioneering in its heyday, has since got stuck in a rut. As Knight argues, "There has been no steady convergence of opinion about the case, not only between the lone gunman and conspiracy theory camps, but within the latter position" (p.99)
• Heavy duty problem: the lack of progress may be traced to a number of fundamental problems. These problems are exactly what Theory Mapping is designed to solve, and so the debate will test the method to the full. The problems include: a) Inability to falsify theories by testing hypotheses i.e. it is not amenable to the scientific method (Theory Mapping does not require falsifiability); b) Involves a large number of facts that have been amassed by the different sides over the years, which is hard to collate: "...the problem is not that there is too little evidence to solve the case but too much data for anyone to master easily..." (Knight p.100) (Theory Mapping provides a way to systematically assess theories in terms of any number of facts); c) It involves different world views, since conspiracy theorists make different assumptions about the trustworthiness of government and hence treat the evidence collected by government agencies differently from those adhering to the ‘lone gunman theory’. "...it has produced a free-fall of suspicion that begins to doubt everything - even the fundamental ground rules of proof and evidence" (Knight p.100) (Theory Mapping allows different world views to have their own rules of proof and evidence, providing they are coherently justified); d) Distorted incentives and lack of quality control, leading to misinformation, back-biting and fraud (by having an objective test of the truth, Theory Mapping ensures that everyone's incentives are correctly aligned).
  
• High profile issue: the JFK assassination is a high-profile issue which many people feel passionately about. There is therefore likely to be a good supply of people willing to engage in the debate and overcome the initial costs of learning how to use the Theory Mapping method.

Implementation Plan

The plan to implement the pilot test is currently as follows:

1. Identify a software company and/or research institution that share the vision for Theory Mapping and are interested in sponsoring the first debate.
2. Find two high-profile JFK experts to conduct the first debate, one for the Lone Gunman Theory, and one for a version of conspiracy.
3. Run the first debate in private while recording all the content.
4. Evaluation of the private stage of the pilot test, with a report to partners on the debate's performance and lessons learnt.
5. If successful, secure seed funding to set up the organization, software and website. This would start with the content from the first JFK debate and open the debate up to the public, with marketing through the various JFK discussion boards.
6. Evaluation of the public stage of the pilot test, with a report to partners on performance and lessons learnt.
7. Modifications made as appropriate.
8. Full launch with debates and competitions on any subjects possible.
f

Objection: Too complicated

f
Objection:

Theory Mapping is simply too complicated to be able to command a widespread following, requiring significant upfront investment of time in agreeing on the facts, and learning and drawing up the Theory Maps.

Responses:

1. Importance of good software
The level of time and mental effort required can be significantly reduced through effective software. For instance, the software can have a function for entering facts, which allows them to be dragged and dropped onto each map. See Theory Mapping Software for a discussion of this.

2. Upfront costs decline over time
The level of effort required by a newbie would decline significantly over time for a particular topic, as a database of facts is drawn up and example Theory Maps exist to refer to.

3. Incentives outweigh costs
Having an objective test for who wins and loses, creates a strong incentive to participate or observe, that can outweigh the upfront investment costs.

4. Widespread uptake isn't necessary
Even if Theory Mapping does not command a widespread following, it still has the potential to revolutionise thinking and debate on a subject. This is because those who do participate are likely to be the opinion leaders, and the results will be widely publicized.

5. Argument Map literacy will improve over time
It has been pointed out by Simon Buckingham Shum (here) that with regard to argument visualization tools we need “a new literacy in being able to read and write in the new medium, and a new fluency in using these conversational tools in appropriate ways in different contexts.” As argument mapping becomes more widely used, so this literacy will develop.

6. Need for pilot testing
The only way to be sure of whether Theory Mapping is too complicated is to pilot test it!
f

Objection: High risk of deadlock

f
Objection:

A Theory Mapping Debate requires agreement between both sides on many different things: Agreed Facts; Background Facts; and what can qualify as an incoherency. This is bound to result in deadlock, and if the moderator takes action to break it they will be labeled as biased by the losing side, reducing the methods claim to be neutral and objective.

Responses:

1. Definitions of facts and incoherencies are clear
If finding agreement on a particular fact is difficult, it can always be reduced to its most raw form as a publicly verifiable observation. The incoherencies are defined by the rules of logic, which are also clear.

2. Any areas of ambiguity can be removed by rules
Over time, a moderator’s rule book can be drawn up to clarify any areas of ambiguity. When signing up to a Theory Mapping Debate one has to agree to these rules.

3. Public account of deliberations
If any action is taken by the moderator which one side complains about, the issue is ultimately open to the jury of public opinion, since all of the proceedings would be recorded on the Theory Mapping website. If one side is seen to be being unreasonable, it will reflect badly on them as having to resort to underhand tactics in order to win.
f

Objection: Test of the truth too weak

f
Objection:

You will end up with multiple theories with equally coherent explanations of the facts. In fact, you could make up an entirely fictitious account and it could be just as coherent as a serious explanation, much like a mentally ill person can create a coherent belief system for why people are trying to kill them. Crabtree’s Bludgeon (origin obscure) states that "No set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated." An additional criterion will then be needed to decide between them, such as Simplicity/Parsimony/ Ockams Razor i.e. the one with the fewest number of propositions.

Responses:

1. Unlikely to happen
I am not convinced that this problem would ever occur in practice, for two reasons:

• Every argument must be fully justified: to achieve full coherence, every premise must be justified either by logically valid arguments, or by facts (either Agreed Facts related to the Research Question, or Background Facts). This is a very demanding requirement, and it is not clear to me that any theory can adequately do this.
• Each theory has to explain the evidence for the competing theories: it may be easy to come up with ‘ad hoc explanations’ to explain away opposing evidence, but will be hard to fully justify these explanations and do so in a way that is consistent with the rest of the theory. For instance, a conspiracy theorist on the JFK assassination has to be careful in explaining away evidence for the Lone Gunman Theory as due to official cover-ups, since they have to have a consistent theory for how they can still trust other evidence otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot.

2. Simplicity is already incorporated
Although Simplicity is often talked about as a criterion for theory selection, there is actually little hard evidence for why it should be used. The strongest reason that I have seen is that the more assumptions you make, the greater the chance that one of them is wrong. But it could be argued that this is already incorporated within our truth test, since the more premises there are, the greater the risk of not being able to fully justify all of them. For instance, the more ad hoc explanations you have, the more premises you have to insert to justify when exceptions need to be made, which themselves need to be justified. The risk of incoherence goes up dramatically.

3. Theory Mapping would still be useful
If using Theory Mapping demonstrates that this is true, it will still have been useful. If it is found that there genuinely are multiple theories with equally coherent explanations, that would itself be a useful finding. Firstly, it would increase mutual respect between adherents to the different theories. Secondly, it would demonstrate the need for an additional criterion and so help build consensus in identifying one. One possible candidate could be to judge the explanations on their usefulness for making predictions. The underlying definition of truth that Theory Mapping is based upon is that truth is the accurate prediction of sense experiences, which is itself based on the fact that the fundamental reason we value ‘truth’ is to help us to cope better with reality as it presents itself to us. The explanations of facts in Theory Mapping only need to address the first-level cause of the fact. But if they can go beyond this to deeper level causes then the theory will be much more useful in predicting future sense experiences and guiding action. For instance, a conspiracy theory that traces the JFK assassination back to the Military Industrial Complex is more useful in making predictions about American society than one that simply establishes the involvement of a team of government operatives. If they both have the same level of coherence, one should therefore prefer the former. How this judgement of predictive usefulness or explanatory depth could be done in an objective manner would need to be worked out through specific cases.
f

Theory Mapping and Epistemology

f
There is a debate within epistemology (the philosophy of knowledge) about how claims and beliefs are ultimately justified as true. One view (Foundationalism) says that beliefs are justified within belief systems structured like houses in which everything is grounded upon foundational beliefs that are based on either facts or self-evident truths. The other view (Coherentism) says that beliefs are justified within belief systems structured like spiders webs in which all beliefs depend on each other and justification comes from the coherence of the system as a whole. This debate is mirrored by one within Christian theology between Evidentialists who believe that Christianity can be justified by objective analysis of the evidence, and Presuppositionalists, who believe that Christianity can be justified by how coherent it is as a world view.

I believe that as with most things, the truth is mixture of both approaches. Although belief systems can best be seen as spiders webs, just like spiders webs they have to have external reference points to fix themselves onto, which are facts. A web is stronger (and a belief system more justified as true) not only from being tightly knitted (internally coherent) but also from being fitted to many reference points (fitting the most facts). The test of the truth used in Theory Mapping (coherent explanation of facts) therefore takes both of these aspects into account.

However, the key contribution of Theory Mapping to epistemology is to enable practical research to help to resolve this debate. As I am currently aware, the debate between Foundationlism and Coherentism is largely carried out through hypothetical speculations about belief systems, rather than actually mapping out actual belief systems and seeing what the structure is. Theory Mapping is the ideal tool for doing this mapping out, allowing complex theories to be mapped out, revealing their inner structure.

The structure of Argument Maps assumes that Foundationalism is true, since Arguments Maps follow a strict hierarchical structure where arguments are grounded on evidence. Theory Mapping also incorporates insights from Coherentism in that:

• It is accepted that there can be multiple interpretations of Agreed Facts, and so just because an argument is logical and supported by a fact does not 'prove' it to be true.
• Interlocking aspects of belief systems are allowed for, since if there are certain beliefs/premises that serve a systemic role in justifying a number of arguments, this is clearly shown on the map (see Ability to map complex theories).

As experience is gained from Theory Mapping about the structure of theories, and software is improved, it may be that even better ways can be developed for presenting maps e.g. where the software automatically structures the map to fit the structure of the theory.
f
f

Theory Mapping and Education

f
Theory Mapping can be a powerful tool for the teaching of theories due to:

• Clear communication: see post on Argument Mapping.
• Ability to present the historical development of ideas: you would first present a Theory Map of the dominant theory at a particular point in time, demonstrating clearly how it provided the most coherent explanation of the available facts. You can then present (or brainstorm within the group) how this was challenged by new facts creating incoherencies, and introduce the Theory Map of the best competing theory. After a while a ‘paradigm shift’ occurs in which the higher coherence of the new theory is so compelling that support shifts to it. In this way, students can feel much more involved in the intellectual debate, and hence understand and remember it better.
• Improved critical thinking skills: it has been demonstrated that Argument Mapping is very effective in improving critical thinking skills (e.g. van Gelder, T. J., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Cultivating Expertise in Informal Reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 142-152)

Obviously, this would need to be first be developed for university classes, and then simplified to be appropriate for earlier education levels.
f
f

Theory Mapping and Theology

f
Every religion has different competing denominations based on different versions and interpretations of its written and oral traditions. Each denomination believes that it has the most coherent account of the faith.

Most people belonging to the faith would presumably decry such internecine conflict which weakens the faith in its dealings with the outside world. However, there seems to be a lack of any means to resolve it. I suggest that this is due to two underlying problems:

• Different reference points: just as each world view has a different test of the truth to defend its claims, so each denomination has a different set of reference points (written or oral traditions) against which they defend their claims.
• Ambiguity of reference points: even if two denominations share the same reference point (e.g. the same version of a holy book), the reference point can be ambiguous in various areas and hence subject to various possible interpretations. For instance, different denominations of Christianity can all point to many verses in the Bible to support their particular doctrinal positions. Each side believes that it has the most coherent interpretation, but the shear complexity of the issues makes it very difficult to assess.

Theory Mapping is a perfect tool to help address these problems. The problem of different reference points is resolved by both sides agreeing on the basic facts about the reference points (which can they do if the facts are stated in their raw form i.e. as publicly verifiable observations), from which each side can then construct its own preferred interpretation providing it is coherent. The complexity of reference points can be handled by treating individual verses of a holy book as ‘facts’, where each theory has to come up with the most coherent explanation of them and the quantitative measure of coherence provides a simple summary of which is the most successful.
f

Theory Mapping and Intelligence Analysis

f
There are currently two main competing tools to assist intelligence analysts in analyzing data to decide between different theories about what is going on behind the scenes: Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH); and Hypothesis Mapping (HM).

Theory Mapping is essentially a synthesis of them both, and hence combines both of their advantages without the weaknesses:

• Like Analysis of Competing Hypotheses: Theory Mapping involves clarification of the facts to be explained, and a quantitative measure to assess the power of a theory in fitting the facts.
• Like Hypothesis Mapping: Theory Mapping uses Argument Mapping which allows theories and their justifications to be outlined in a much more sophisticated way than ACH. See Tim van Gelder's blog for the advantages of HM over ACH.

f

Theory Mapping and Academic Research

f
Academic research already has the scientific method to assist it in selecting theories with the highest probability of being true. The key aspects in selecting theories here being (in theory at least), their ability to be falsified, and how able they are to resist being falsified.

However, Theory Mapping can still make a big contribution to academic research in the following ways:

• Broadening the research community: because it is web-based, Theory Mapping potentially allows anyone in the world with an internet connection to contribute their brain power to improving academic theories. Academics are beginning to realize the power of the internet. For instance, the moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt has launched a public competition for people to revise his Theory of Moral Foundations, either by providing theoretical ideas or new empirical evidence. This is publicized via his website at www.moralfoundations.org. A Theory Mapping Competition would allow this to be done much more efficiently, in which Haidt would outline the Agreed Facts and a Theory Map of his theory in explaining them. Contestants would then enter their own Theory Maps to compete with his, and suggest additional facts that his theory cannot explain.
• Outside the physical sciences: outside the physical sciences it is much less practical to select theories according to their falsifiability and to conclusively falsify them. You therefore end up having a mass of empirical evidence and different competing theories, without a rigorous process for selecting between them. Theory Mapping can therefore help to improve the efficiency of academic debate and ensure that academics have the incentive to develop theories with the maximum probability of being true, rather than to maximise their output of peer-reviewed publications.

f
f

Theory Mapping and World Views

f
Agendas

There are a number of different agendas concerning world views/belief systems/ ideologies, depending on one’s perspective:

• Seeker after truth: wants a rational means to judge between different world views. The problem is that each world view has its own epistemology for how to test for the truth, and so as soon as one selects a means to judge between them, one is potentially already biased towards some and against others. For instance, atheists would prefer the scientist method while theists would say that the scientific method is inadequate. Conspiracists cannot trust evidence gathered by official bodies, while non-conspiracists can.
• Adherents: want a way to convince others that their world view is the best. But they find that when they try to engage others in debate they do not get far since they are all coming from such different standpoints that it is hard to communicate and find common ground to work from. Some end up blaming non-believers as not open-minded enough, while others resort to rhetoric and emotional manipulation.
• Policy makers: want a way to reduce the impact of different world views in causing Wicked Problems, whose solutions requires large groups of individuals to change their mindsets and behaviours e.g. one of the definitions of a wicked problem includes the feature that “Stakeholders have radically different world views and different frames for understanding the problem” (Jeff Conklin). Classic examples of wicked problems include economic, environmental and political issues.
• Academics: want to understand better the nature and role of world views, whether religious, political etc.
• Visionaries: dream of a world in which we can all share a common world view based upon integrating the most advanced human ideas e.g. the Center Leo Apostel for Interdisciplinary Studies.

Theory Mapping provides an answer to all of these agendas.


A rational way to assess different world views (Seeker after truth)

The test for the truth that Theory Mapping is based upon of looking at coherence in explaining facts is completely neutral between different world views, and so is a rational way to judge between them. Each world view is free to flesh out their own more substantive tests of the truth, provided they can be coherently justified within the system or in reference to facts that the competing world views can agree with. For instance, the conspiracist is free to distrust evidence gathered by official bodies providing it is justified by rules about what you can and cannot trust that is itself coherently justified e.g. with reference to examples of proven government cover-ups.


A way to improve the efficiency of debate between world views (Adherents and Policy makers)

Differences between worldviews are based not just on different beliefs about what is true, but also different values and economic interests. However, by increasing the efficiency of debate between worldviews about what is true, Theory Mapping can at least help to reduce some of the complexity of Wicked Problems. For instance, Theory Mapping of climate change could help to bring greater agreement and accuracy over the extent of the problem and the best underlying models for modeling solutions. The choices between those solutions would then depend on values and economic interests.

Some websites and tools have already been developed to help improve the debate between world views using forms of Argument Mapping (see the post Argument Mapping for more information), and there are a number of initiatives to harness the power of visual argumentation techniques to address Wicked Problems e.g. the Global Sensemaking network. Theory Mapping goes one step further by providing an objective test of the truth of world views, that all parties can agree to. This can be potentially revolutionary in improving the efficiency of debate, to the benefit of both adherents and policy makers.

To make the case, it is first necessary to have a definition of the ‘efficiency of debate’. I suggest that it can be defined in terms of benefits versus costs:

Benefits in terms of:
A. Increasing the probability of people believing the truth on any given topic as a result of participating in or observing the debate.
B. Increasing mutual respect and understanding between world views.

Costs in terms of time and money.

Having an objective test of the truth of competing world views may have a revolutionary effect by playing on each world view’s conviction that they have the most coherent account of reality. If the results from Theory Mapping debates start coming out that show a particular world view not to be the most coherent at explaining Agreed Facts, it will create cognitive dissonance within the adherents, not to mention a loss of face. Since the Theory Mapping approach is completely neutral between debating parties (see above), this cognitive dissonance cannot just be eliminated by writing off the results as ‘biased’, and so the results have to be treated seriously. Adherents will therefore have a strong incentive to:

• Participate in Theory Mapping debates: this ensures that the maximum variety of ideas and experiences can be contributed, increasing effectiveness (Benefit A);
• Observe Theory Mapping debates: this ensures a maximum impact from the debates (Benefit A).
• Increase the coherence of their world view: all of the participants efforts will therefore be most efficiently channeled to increasing the probability that their theory is true, first by gathering new facts or changing the arguments, and if that fails, making changes to the theory itself (Benefit A).
• Reduce the coherence of competing world views: to point out incoherencies in the competing theories, they have to first of all fully understand them by reading the Theory Maps in detail. This promotes mutual understanding between world views (Benefit A).

Creating such incentives is important given our natural inertia to remain in our own comfy world of beliefs rather than engage with others who disagree with us and open our beliefs up for potential criticism. It can also counter the higher initial cost of Theory Mapping in terms of time and mental effort to learn the methodology.

Neutral observers of the debate would be likely to be persuaded to believe the most coherent world view (Benefit A), while adherents to the losing side would take much longer. Over time, a theory that consistently proved itself to be significantly less coherent would gradually die out, unless it had certain advantages in meeting peoples psychological needs.

Any world view that had a comparatively high level of coherence would command the respect of the other world views (Benefit B).

The upfront costs of Theory Mapping are higher than other means of debate, but are likely to be more than offset by the higher benefits as outlined above. The time taken to learn and implement the method can also be reduced through effective software (see How to Implement Theory Mapping). Cost-benefit analysis can be done once the approach is implemented to test to what extent it really does increase efficiency.


A way to learn more about world views (Academics)

Studying Theory Mapping Debates and Theory Mapping Competitions involving world views will be a rich source of data for academics to understand better the role and nature of world views/belief systems/ideologies. This is for a number of reasons:

• Uncovering the full picture: although much is written about the surface content of world views, less is understood about the underlying assumptions and arguments that they are based upon. Since Theory Mapping uses Argument Mapping, all hidden assumptions and arguments have to be stated explicitly. Furthermore, since Theory Mapping forces each world view to provide a coherent explanation of the evidence put forward by its competitors, it will reveal what each world view has to say about a large number of different topics.
• Uncovering differences within world views: different world views each have many competing versions, which will be clearly revealed as they compete for dominance.
• Uncovering the bases for belief: studying the reactions of adherents to losing Theory Mapping Debates can provide information about how beliefs are grounded and how they can be changed.

A way to ensure survival of the fittest (Visionaries)

It could be argued that the current proliferation of different world views is partly due to a lack of competition. By increasing that competition, Theory Mapping can allow only the ‘fittest’ (in fitting the facts) to survive. If there genuinely is a superior world view it will emerge naturally as the victor.

Of course, this doesn’t take into account the functions that world views play in providing meaning and value as well as a model of the world. But other methods can be developed for improving competition between world views in meeting our needs for meaning and value e.g. see my post Value System Analysis.
f

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

Process of Theory Mapping

f
The process may be summarized briefly as consisting of the following steps. For the 'Who shot JFK?' Theory Map that is referred to, download the zip file here, extract and open the html file.


Step 1: State the Research Question

This is the basic question that you want the theory to answer, and is put at the top of the map. This is necessary in order to determine which facts need to be collected.

In the case of JFK, the Research Question would be ‘Who killed JFK?’

Theory Mapping is currently only designed to deal with factual questions rather than questions regarding values or decisions. See Theory Mapping and World Views for a discussion about the implications of this.


Step 2: Collection of Facts

In their most raw form, facts are publicly verifiable observations. A list of the facts relevant to answering the Research Question is drawn up in a table, including a statement of the fact, a summary title, and the source. These facts may be called Agreed Facts. The process for compiling them depends upon the mode of application of Theory Mapping – Debate or Competition.

So for the JFK case, the Agreed Facts would include the different pieces of physical evidence (e.g. bullet CE399 and the bullet fragments) that can be viewed in person and are available for analysis, or the recorded statements of witnesses that can be read by anyone in the official reports or interviews by journalists, or the reports of experts who have done analysis of the bullets. No one can dispute these, since they can be publicly verified. For the initial draft table of the Agreed Facts for the JFK case, click on the link within the Situation box of the JFK Map.

How these facts are interpreted is completely theory dependent. For instance, some JFK conspiracists believe that the physical evidence has been tampered with or fabricated by the authorities. But it is still a fact that this evidence exists.


Step 3: Draft Theory Map to fit the facts

The core answer of the theory to the Research Question is summarized in a box (or boxes) under the question. This hypothesis must then be justified using logical arguments presented as Argument Maps. The arguments given must ultimately be grounded in either the Agreed Facts (from Step 2), or in other publicly verifiable facts that are not directly related to the research question, which we will call Background Facts. Each competing theory is likely to draw on different Agreed Facts to support their case, but what is needed is a theory that can fit all of the facts. Theory Mapping therefore forces each theory to include explanations of any Agreed Facts that are used to support rival theories but are not used in the justification of its own core hypothesis. These explanations must themselves be logically justified and grounded in facts, and be consistent with the rest of the theory.

For the JFK case, an example Theory Map has been drawn for the Lone Gunman Theory using bCisive argument mapping software. This is very much in draft form and is for illustrative purposes only. The core hypothesis of the Lone Gunman Theory is ‘Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone from 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD)’. This is then justified by various reasons, generally ending with facts about the case (which correspond to the Agreed Facts table - only the title of the fact is given on the map, so look at the Excel table for the details).

If we assume that there is one competing theory called Conspiracy Theory 1, the map for the Lone Gunman Theory includes a reason that “Facts presented as evidence for Conspiracy Theory 1 can be coherently explained away”. Underneath this, each of the facts given in support of a conspiracy is presented, followed by an explanation with reasons. For instance, the fact that the Warren Commission did not adequately investigate the possibility of a conspiracy may be explained as due to shortage of time and the desire of President Johnson to avoid public pressure to go to war with Cuba or Russia in retaliation for JFK’s death, rather than as due to the need to cover up a conspiracy.



Step 4: Measurement of coherence

The final key step is to objectively measure the coherence of the theory in explaining the Agreed Facts, which is the test of the truth. For the details of this see Theory Mapping Truth Test.

The precise process for conducting the critical analysis of the incoherencies and finalizing the Incoherences Scores, depends upon which mode of application of Theory Mapping is being used – Debate or Competition.


Step 5: Iteration of the previous stages to increase coherence

You then work back through the previous stages to reduce the Incoherence Score i.e. looking for new Agreed Facts to support the theory and cause problems for other theories (Step 2), and strengthening the theory and the arguments (Step 3).
f