The 2015 International Conference on the Science of Dialogic Design: Symposia for Scientists and Practitioners

Conference Dates: May 2-7, 2015
Post Conference School: May 8-10 May, 2015

Place: Cyprus

Aims:

1. To create an opportunity for scientists and practitioners of the Science of Structured Dialogic Design from across the world to get together for a whole week and engage in structured democratic dialogues that would help us all not only advance the science and plan its future but also to get to know each other and become friends.
2. To offer a unique opportunity for younger colleagues and those interested to learn more about SDD and engage in the science of the practice, to meet and interact with the world pioneers

Justification of the Need

I am very happy to hear about this initiative. I find it very relevant to our present state of the world, since it could convey a possible extension of our SDD practices to include the birth of a global Observatory which might be managed by a group of us and give a relevant service to governments and companies and NGO's during the whole century, by providing the information of the results of application of collaborative action plans in different parts of the world, as well as data, and series of data regarding the main variables that we could establish for a follow-up policy by civilians all around the planet. Our third millennium world needs new tools that can protect its sustainability and foster up harmony into its evolution.

Just for the record, whilst appreciating the energy and commitment to the SDD initiative, I consider it appropriate to ask the question whether the context has been considered:, as implied by questions such as the following:

-- is the assumption being made that SDD is the appropriate response at this time and necessarily to be preferred over others -- and that a global consensus can be cultivated in support of this view

-- is it considered complementary to other approaches offering other insights

-- how best to interrelate complementary approaches, each with a tendency to consider that it is of primary value -- especially in seeking to reinforce that perspective through the gathering

-- supposing that significant support for SDD emerged as a consequence of the exercise, how is it assumed that the cases for marginalizing other approaches (considered to be of lesser relevance) would be undertaken

-- how best to deal with advocacy of competing approaches and their constituencies

-- if it is possible that "different strokes are required for different folks", how is this consideration to be recognized and integrated, especially if those marginalized by SDD strenuously object in some way

-- what questions remain unasked in framing the SDD initiative -- as they are in the framing of initiatives by others -- and how do such questions constrain the wider appreciation of the outcome

Such questions arise at a time when consideration is being given to the process of argumentation on the web and the only too evident weaknesses of current methodology

Implementing the Argument Web http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2013/10/168171-implementing-the-argument-web/abstract

Arguing on the web 2.0: (Amsterdam, June 30 - July 1, 2014) http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.region.europe/10664

Arguing on the Web 2.0 http://philevents.org/event/show/12234

8th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation http://cf.hum.uva.nl/issa/

Is SDD represented at the latter event?

Best -- and my apologies for raising these problematic issues

Tony Judge