search

controversies-of-science / react-worldviewer-app

(WIP) => { The Controversies of Science App. Currently includes controversy search and a swiping interface for structuring the crowdsourcing of information on controversies. }
https://www.controversiesofscience.com
1 stars 0 forks source link

Article: 'Submit a Controversy' menu item + page #197

Open worldviewer opened 7 years ago

worldviewer commented 7 years ago

Should go to a form that saves info into a dynamodb table, but also emails me w/ the data. A very important aspect of this is to distill my own process for creating controversy cards into this set of questions.

worldviewer commented 7 years ago

Teach people how to create their own controversy cards, one field at a time.

worldviewer commented 6 years ago

How to Make a Controversy Card

  1. We are looking for exceptional explanations: Either this is the best critique on this topic, or it explains something well where most others have struggled. Is the content surprising in some manner, or is it educationally dense? With regards to people cards, the most important question is can we learn from this person's behavior? In other words, the lesson can simply be that we should be aware that such people exist. For scientific controversies, is there some sort of lesson which we need to highlight here which people seem to still be making? Can this be called an ongoing controversy?

  2. The title should of course match the content, but also be an "atomic unit" which could in theory be aggregated with others into distinct curricula. Shorter is generally better.

(show a list of examples w/ read more)

  1. The summary should hit the most important points. Its purpose is an act of persuasion insofar as you are trying to convince the person to read the content. The length is limited by the space available.

(text input with length warning)

  1. What is your idea for the graphic? This should relate to the controversy card's intended lesson. Does this idea support the author's point? Is it creative?

  2. Something to be considerate of: When the title is mentioned to somebody, do they have a predictable response? If so, then what is your plan to get them to listen to and learn from the author's intended message?

  3. Are there predictable rebuttals? Is it worth responding to them? Perhaps there should also be a second card where you review the debate over the issue?

  4. Have you tried presenting this online yet? If so, please post links where people have already reacted to it.

  5. Sometimes the best content is really a combination of several different sources. Perhaps they discuss different aspects of the issue, or they each bring a different talent to the explanation, or maybe one of the sources seems fatally flawed in one section (and so that section will be omitted). With this approach, we are not seeking out people to believe, but rather writing which inspires deep thought.

  6. Have you learned anything about people as a result of presenting these claims? This one cannot be forced; either you did or you didn't. Sometimes the most important lesson about a scientific controversy is the reaction (or lack of the expected reaction).

  7. Would you classify this as a paradigm dispute or a tweak to existing models? The former involves either the questioning of foundational assumptions or the creation of a novel hypothesis, whereas the latter accepts the validity of the existing assumptions and the existing hypothesis. In a general sense, the most promising controversies are the paradigm disputes because they can open up entirely new lines of investigation.