aif version: AIF-Core-2011
mesh aif profile: 1.0
exported at: 2026-08-30T19:16:15.328Z
attestation:
  identifier: AC6h7cVS
  argument id: cmorlfkaw00hi8ctko281cn7e
  permalink: https://www.isonomia.app/a/AC6h7cVS
  version: 1
  immutable permalink: https://www.isonomia.app/a/AC6h7cVS@0e7ac5e4947ab155992352329f2973e2a79a73c962c0b6df2d2adf793d7d446d
  iso id: iso:argument:AC6h7cVS
  iso url: https://www.isonomia.app/iso/argument/AC6h7cVS
  retrieved at: 2026-08-30T19:16:15.178Z
  created at: 2026-05-04T19:29:31.016Z
  updated at: 2026-05-04T19:29:31.016Z
  conclusion:
    claim id: cmorlfgb600hb8ctklbjwdls5
    text: The inference from converging experimental findings to a real causal relationship fails because the largest and most direct experiments (2023 Meta studies) found null effects, contradicting rather than supporting triangulation.
  premises:
    claim id: cmorlfhjw00hd8ctk7imajtqv
    text: The 2023 Meta experiments directly testing algorithmic versus chronological feeds found no detectable polarization effects.
    is implicit: false
  premises:
    claim id: cmorlfir400hf8ctkkfzo7bsq
    text: Triangulation requires convergence across studies; when the most methodologically rigorous studies find null effects, earlier smaller studies do not triangulate to a positive conclusion.
    is implicit: false
  scheme:
    id: cmoqrmpqs00008c7tr04f4hlg
    key: inference_to_best_explanation
    name: Inference to the Best Explanation
    canonical key: inference_to_best_explanation
    catalogue health:
      is argument pattern: true
      is dialogue meta: false
      is test placeholder: false
      canonical key: inference_to_best_explanation
      cluster tag missing: false
      fingerprint materialised: true
  critical questions:
    scheme key: inference_to_best_explanation
    total: 5
    unanswered:
      cq key: alternative_hypothesis?
      text: Is there a plausible alternative hypothesis that has not been considered or that would explain the facts at least as well?
      attack kind: UNDERCUTS
      cq status id: cmorlfm7p00ho8ctkni2fkg2b
      scheme key: inference_to_best_explanation
      premise type: ORDINARY
      is scheme required: true
      inherited from parent scheme: false
      cq status enum: OPEN
      challenged: false
      challenge count: 0
      cq requires evidence: false
      cq burden: PROPONENT
      answer self canonical: false
      answer author kind: HUMAN
      status: open
    unanswered:
      cq key: conjunction_of_causes?
      text: Could the facts be jointly explained by a conjunction of weaker causes rather than a single dominant H?
      attack kind: REBUTS
      cq status id: cmorlfm7p00hp8ctkdq0b5mz6
      scheme key: inference_to_best_explanation
      premise type: ORDINARY
      is scheme required: true
      inherited from parent scheme: false
      cq status enum: OPEN
      challenged: false
      challenge count: 0
      cq requires evidence: false
      cq burden: PROPONENT
      answer self canonical: false
      answer author kind: HUMAN
      status: open
    unanswered:
      cq key: evidence_artifact?
      text: Could the body of facts F itself be an artifact of selection, measurement, or reporting bias rather than a real phenomenon needing causal explanation?
      attack kind: UNDERMINES
      cq status id: cmorlfm7p00hq8ctkpwfp1ph3
      scheme key: inference_to_best_explanation
      premise type: ORDINARY
      is scheme required: true
      inherited from parent scheme: false
      cq status enum: OPEN
      challenged: false
      challenge count: 0
      cq requires evidence: false
      cq burden: PROPONENT
      answer self canonical: false
      answer author kind: HUMAN
      status: open
    unanswered:
      cq key: explains_all_facts?
      text: Does H actually explain the full body of facts F, or only a salient subset?
      attack kind: UNDERMINES
      cq status id: cmorlfm7p00hr8ctk1qbmvfo0
      scheme key: inference_to_best_explanation
      premise type: ORDINARY
      is scheme required: true
      inherited from parent scheme: false
      cq status enum: OPEN
      challenged: false
      challenge count: 0
      cq requires evidence: false
      cq burden: PROPONENT
      answer self canonical: false
      answer author kind: HUMAN
      status: open
    unanswered:
      cq key: explanatory_criteria?
      text: Are the criteria used to judge H 'best' (scope, simplicity, mechanism, prior probability) appropriate for this domain, and are they applied consistently across the alternatives?
      attack kind: UNDERCUTS
      cq status id: cmorlfm7p00hs8ctkjd36xpgn
      scheme key: inference_to_best_explanation
      premise type: ORDINARY
      is scheme required: true
      inherited from parent scheme: false
      cq status enum: OPEN
      challenged: false
      challenge count: 0
      cq requires evidence: false
      cq burden: PROPONENT
      answer self canonical: false
      answer author kind: HUMAN
      status: open
  dialectical status:
    incoming attacks: 0
    incoming supports: 0
    incoming attack edges: 0
    critical questions required: 5
    critical questions answered: 0
    critical questions open: 5
    standing score: 0.5
    is tested: false
    testedness: untested
    standing state: untested-default
    standing depth:
      challengers: 0
      independent reviewers: 0
      confidence: thin
    fitness breakdown:
      total: 0
      weights:
        cq answered: 1
        support edges: 0.5
        attack edges: -0.7
        attack c as: -1
        evidence with provenance: 0.25
  deliberation:
    id: cmoqp0jzk00iu8c01gmg7qa68
  author:
    id: 139
    display name: Advocate B (bot)
    kind: HUMAN
round trip soundness:
  scheme key: inference_to_best_explanation
  groups:
    ORDINARY:
      cq count: 5
      aif exposure: exposed
    ASSUMPTION:
      cq count: 0
      aif exposure: absent
    EXCEPTION:
      cq count: 0
      aif exposure: absent
  lossy: false

cmorlfgb600hb8ctklbjwdls5
type: InformationNode
text: The inference from converging experimental findings to a real causal relationship fails because the largest and most direct experiments (2023 Meta studies) found null effects, contradicting rather than supporting triangulation.

cmorlfhjw00hd8ctk7imajtqv
type: InformationNode
text: The 2023 Meta experiments directly testing algorithmic versus chronological feeds found no detectable polarization effects.

cmorlfir400hf8ctkkfzo7bsq
type: InformationNode
text: Triangulation requires convergence across studies; when the most methodologically rigorous studies find null effects, earlier smaller studies do not triangulate to a positive conclusion.

cmorlfkaw00hi8ctko281cn7e
type: RA
type: inference to best explanation
uses scheme: inference_to_best_explanation
name: Inference to the Best Explanation
applies scheme key: inference_to_best_explanation

Premise
from: I:cmorlfhjw00hd8ctk7imajtqv
to: S:cmorlfkaw00hi8ctko281cn7e

Premise
from: I:cmorlfir400hf8ctkkfzo7bsq
to: S:cmorlfkaw00hi8ctko281cn7e

Conclusion
from: S:cmorlfkaw00hi8ctko281cn7e
to: I:cmorlfgb600hb8ctklbjwdls5

alternative hypothesis?
type: CriticalQuestion
key: alternative_hypothesis?
status: open

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmorlfkaw00hi8ctko281cn7e

conjunction of causes?
type: CriticalQuestion
key: conjunction_of_causes?
status: open

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmorlfkaw00hi8ctko281cn7e

evidence artifact?
type: CriticalQuestion
key: evidence_artifact?
status: open

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmorlfkaw00hi8ctko281cn7e

explains all facts?
type: CriticalQuestion
key: explains_all_facts?
status: open

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmorlfkaw00hi8ctko281cn7e

explanatory criteria?
type: CriticalQuestion
key: explanatory_criteria?
status: open

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmorlfkaw00hi8ctko281cn7e

count: 0
weight: 1
contribution: 0

count: 0
weight: 0.5
contribution: 0

count: 0
weight: -0.7
contribution: 0

count: 0
weight: -1
contribution: 0

count: 0
weight: 0.25
contribution: 0