Summa Way

The summa is a highly compressed structured summary of live debates on disputed questions. A summa is to live debate as wiki DocumentMode is to ThreadMode. Here is how one is structured.

A treatise is organized into major numbered questions, or general issues within the topic of the treatise. Each question comprises several short related articles. The article is the basic unit of a summa, and it has five parts.

First, each article deals with a single yes/no question stated in its title, beginning with the word utrum ("whether").

Second, objections are stated and numbered, usually the best three. These are not StrawMen (see StrawMan), but short (a few sentences in syllogism format) summaries or quotes of real opponents.

Third, the author gives his opinion beginning with sed contra ("On the contrary") and usually quoting some accepted authority.

Fourth, the author elaborates his view beginning with "I answer that". This is the main part, and it clarifies term definitions as it goes.

Fifth, the author replies to each objection raised in the first part. Usually he draws some term distinction, showing the objecter had a partial truth.

I have used the technique in requirements and design with good results. It is a way of covering the reasons why alternate designs were found wanting, and that is something missing in most finished documents I've read.

I do not know how we might translate this form to Wiki. Ideas? What appeals is that by their nature summae reference other authors extensively, either quoting opponents or authorities. Web excels at such cross-referencing.

Would anybody like to view a sample Aquinas SummaArticle? Join us in a test debate on "whether formal verification is necessary", at IsVerificationNecessary.

-- AlanWostenberg, Colorado, 9/24/98.

Structurally, the objectors own 1/3 of the logic (Obj 1, 2) while the author owns 2/3 (On the contrary, I answer that, Re Obj 1, Re Obj 2). But the order is meant to restore that imbalance by giving objectors pride of place.

It's said that the clearest expressions of the arguments against Aquinas are the arguments he constructed in his disputatios. The SummaWay is more than fair when composed by someone more able than his opponents and less than fair when composed by someone less able than his opponents.

The intent is for balance, not lopsideness.

Pride of place is not necessarily good argumentation. I'd much rather go last than first in a presentation. Thanks for the link to Aquinas' example, by the way. What I see is

P?
argument for not-P
argument for not-P
argument for P
argument for P
argument for P
argument for P

That doesn't strike me as quite right. Aquinas (my guess) was using a literary device to make his point. On wiki, I'd be interested in seeing it modified in some relative of the following way, to really summarize two sides who have not come to a conclusion:

P?
Con 1: postulated basis for not-P
Con 2: postulated basis for not-P
Pro 1: postulated basis for P
Pro 2: postulated basis for P
Pro 1 Replied: anti-P reply to basis for P
Pro 2 Replied: anti-P reply to basis for P
Con 1Replied: pro-P reply to basis for not-P
Con 2 Replied: pro-P reply to basis for not-P

Because not all arguments start from a reply to an objection (e.g. read Aquinas' - he introduce new basis in his On the Contrary). IsVerificationNecessary seems to be a good test. See IsProofNecessaryNotSufficient for a trial of the alternate form.

-- AlistairCockburn

Thus, the first statement is the argument supporting the conclusion the author does not hold. When you read that Obj 1, if the author did his job, you should read it and say "Wow! Strong argument, how are you going to rebutt that, Mr. Author?". Find out by skipping to Re Obj 1. Or just read sequentially through the objections and you can almost hear the nails splinter into the author's coffin.

Finally, if one wanted to the study the objector's view in detail, he could follow the attribution link to the objector's own full text (try it in Obj 2), and judge for himself if the author was fair. -- AlanWostenberg

This looks a very promising approach to some of the ambiguous issues I'm working people through. The format also seems amenable to automation. -- DaveSmith

The sed contra section, in which an authority is quoted, is probably inappropriate here. AppealToAuthority is the weakest form of argument in every science but theology. It doesn't seem to add much other than that the conclusion to follow is not completely original, and it's somewhat problematical when the conclusion actually is completely original. Finally, it biases the SummaWay in favor of those with ready access to PithyGuruQuotations?.

The strengths of the SummaWay are realized when the author fully understands and fairly presents the objections to his conclusion, and when articles and questions are composed into a single unified expression of his method. XP fairly cries out for a summa; certainly there's no shortage of objections to each of its claims.

-- TomKreitzberg

CategoryMode