(I added links to youtube videos)
Both are good. Deliberation seems best.
Turth mapping is like:
(idea)-> (new idea) -> (new idea) -> (conclusion)
These steps can form a tree.
Each step can be discussed separately.
This is in the form of Agree/Dispute.
But if people have conflicting theories this discussion may never end.
Deliberation is structured a bit different:
Deliberation seems better, because it seems more focussed,
and allows different directions to be taken simultaneously.
So a redshift discussion would look like:
what is the cause of redshift (general question)
__ "expansion/big bang" (proposal1)
____ theory: general relativity lambda (answer1)
____ evidence: background radiation (anwer2)
__ "new tired photons" (proposal2)
____ theory: photons lose energy due to interstellar plasma (answer1)
____ evidence: Halton Arp
____ evidence: laboratory experiments
____ theory: plasma redshift
In this setup, it seems to work for conflicting theories, which is nice.
It would be fair when people that support one theory would not mess too
much into the other theories.
Maybe they could add criticism as:
question: what was before big bang?
question: what is the cause of background radiation?
problem: General relativity may be not be correct.
These may start new general questions.
Good find Loyd.
I would even suggest to convert a part of this forum towards such a format.
But we should first test if this format works in practice.
P.S. Are we allowed to make our own server based on this idea?
It seems pretty simple, and I would expect it could work in a few weeks.