Usage Question about Position Endorsement

[Danny Weltman]

This relates to feature request #75, of course. I'm curious what people (Jason) currently do about cases like this.

I have a position that there is such thing as all-things-considered rationality. Marušić 2015 endorses this, and this is noted in an argument record, because he makes an argument that depends on this position. So if I search for mentions of this position (with the "Mentions" button) the Marušić argument comes up. Is that sufficient? Or should I also note in the position record that Marušić 2015 endorses the position? In some position records I'm doing the latter, but I'm starting to think this is redundant; if the information is in the database somewhere else, why not just rely on that? On the other hand, maybe it's nice to have a summary of everyone who accepts or rejects a position without having to click on the Mentions button and check to see in each case?

[Jason Winning]

So Marusic 2015 is not the work record for the argument for all-things-considered rationality, but you mention the search key of the argument in the description text for that position. Do I have that right?

Note that it is possible for S to put forth an argument, which depends on position P, such that S endorses the argument and its conclusion, but does not endorse P. This might be true if the argument depends on an assumption that S does not endorse (S may or may not be aware of that dependence).

So I think there is bound to be some redundancy and/or ambiguity unless ticket #75 is implemented. I'll try to get to it before too long.

As for what I would do in a case like this: I will often just create an argument record to represent the person's endorsement of the position, even if they don't explicitly make an argument. I'm often more concerned about the endorsement than the argument. If I don't want to mislead myself into thinking the person makes an actual argument, then I sometimes just set the work as a key work for the position, and I can usually remember if the person endorses it or not (in cases where I care one way or the other). But I see that this is not a great way to do things and I think the idea in ticket #75 is definitely the way forward.

[Danny Weltman]

So Marusic 2015 is not the work record for the argument for all-things-considered rationality, but you mention the search key of the argument in the description text for that position. Do I have that right?

Right.