In this section, we will attempt to communicate the intellectual content of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Vedānta using modern protocols.
An argument map visually depicts a conclusion and the premises that lead one to that conclusion, and the premises that lead one to those premises and so on. A debate map visually depicts the arguments for or against a given conclusion, and the arguments for or against those arguments.
Logic textbooks in the modern world talk about two types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is one in which if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion of the argument is necessarily true. An inductive argument is one in which even if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion of the argument is not necessarily true.
Theoretically speaking, debates can be of three types: (a) debates in which only deductive arguments are used, (b) debates in which only inductive arguments are used, or (c) debates in which both deductive and inductive arguments are used. Here we will refer to debate maps visually depicting debates of type (a) as debates maps of the deductive type.
And debates don't happen in the void. Disputants debating a contention do have a number of points that they already agree upon and may even spell them out at times. If in each deductive argument in a debate map, the disputants explicitly state at least one premise that is a point of agreement with their opponents, and if there is no self-contradiction between the points of agreement, we will call that deductive debate map as being regulated.
The conclusion of a deductive argument that is entirely supported by premises that are points of agreement will be naturally true. Similarly, the conclusion of a deductive argument that is entirely objected to by premises that are points of agreement will be naturally false. True and false are generally referred to as truth-values of a contention. In a deductive argument map or debate map, an additional truth-value can also come up: tentatively unknown. This can be the case when, in a deductive argument, a conclusion is built up of three premises: one proven to be true, one proven to be false and one that is a point of agreement between the disputants. In this scenario, the truth-value of the conclusion is tentatively unknown. Here we have come across another feature of a regulated deductive debate map: evaluation.
In this section, we will present such debate maps--those of the evaluated, regulated and deductive type. We use Xmind to create each debate map and provide the Xmind file for each debate for you to scrutinize. We also provide a series of short videos explaining each debate map.
Though we are using a modern method of depicting logical arguments here, there are some elements of traditional Vedic logic embedded here: (1) The system of logic enunciated by Śrī Gautama Ṛṣi (gautamīya-nyāya) is to logically persuade an opponent, not to convince oneself (parārthānumāna). As such, the statement of universal concomitance (vyāpti-vākya) is a point of agreement with an opponent. (2) We are trying to work out this way of depicting the logical skeleton of debates in a spirit of vāda argumentation and to encourage it, and to discourage jalpa and vitaṇḍā argumentations because vādaḥ pravadatām aham (Bhagavad-gītā 10.32)
An argument map visually depicts a conclusion and the premises that lead one to that conclusion, and the premises that lead one to those premises and so on. A debate map visually depicts the arguments for or against a given conclusion, and the arguments for or against those arguments.
Logic textbooks in the modern world talk about two types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is one in which if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion of the argument is necessarily true. An inductive argument is one in which even if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion of the argument is not necessarily true.
Theoretically speaking, debates can be of three types: (a) debates in which only deductive arguments are used, (b) debates in which only inductive arguments are used, or (c) debates in which both deductive and inductive arguments are used. Here we will refer to debate maps visually depicting debates of type (a) as debates maps of the deductive type.
And debates don't happen in the void. Disputants debating a contention do have a number of points that they already agree upon and may even spell them out at times. If in each deductive argument in a debate map, the disputants explicitly state at least one premise that is a point of agreement with their opponents, and if there is no self-contradiction between the points of agreement, we will call that deductive debate map as being regulated.
The conclusion of a deductive argument that is entirely supported by premises that are points of agreement will be naturally true. Similarly, the conclusion of a deductive argument that is entirely objected to by premises that are points of agreement will be naturally false. True and false are generally referred to as truth-values of a contention. In a deductive argument map or debate map, an additional truth-value can also come up: tentatively unknown. This can be the case when, in a deductive argument, a conclusion is built up of three premises: one proven to be true, one proven to be false and one that is a point of agreement between the disputants. In this scenario, the truth-value of the conclusion is tentatively unknown. Here we have come across another feature of a regulated deductive debate map: evaluation.
In this section, we will present such debate maps--those of the evaluated, regulated and deductive type. We use Xmind to create each debate map and provide the Xmind file for each debate for you to scrutinize. We also provide a series of short videos explaining each debate map.
Though we are using a modern method of depicting logical arguments here, there are some elements of traditional Vedic logic embedded here: (1) The system of logic enunciated by Śrī Gautama Ṛṣi (gautamīya-nyāya) is to logically persuade an opponent, not to convince oneself (parārthānumāna). As such, the statement of universal concomitance (vyāpti-vākya) is a point of agreement with an opponent. (2) We are trying to work out this way of depicting the logical skeleton of debates in a spirit of vāda argumentation and to encourage it, and to discourage jalpa and vitaṇḍā argumentations because vādaḥ pravadatām aham (Bhagavad-gītā 10.32)
