aif version: AIF-Core-2011
mesh aif profile: 1.0
exported at: 2026-08-24T19:46:45.492Z
attestation:
  identifier: hImMjuYA
  argument id: cmorpdjy5004i8cjz8pxchl94
  permalink: https://www.isonomia.app/a/hImMjuYA
  version: 1
  immutable permalink: https://www.isonomia.app/a/hImMjuYA@3dcdcfd99a47049ed8d8475dc8b02dfb7d1d79988ea04b2bbbaf0f2ba6f1de1e
  iso id: iso:argument:hImMjuYA
  iso url: https://www.isonomia.app/iso/argument/hImMjuYA
  retrieved at: 2026-08-24T19:46:45.354Z
  created at: 2026-05-04T21:19:55.709Z
  updated at: 2026-05-04T21:19:55.709Z
  conclusion:
    claim id: cmorpdevn00498cjzcjwv5qcw
    text: Engagement patterns favoring out-group animosity content do not establish that algorithmic amplification causes affective polarization when direct experimental manipulation of algorithms produces null polarization effects.
  premises:
    claim id: cmorpdg2c004b8cjzzvhjojbi
    text: Guess et al. (2023) directly manipulated the algorithmic feed and found no detectable effect on affective polarization despite substantial changes in content exposure.
    is implicit: false
  premises:
    claim id: cmorpdh8w004d8cjzlz0zoh7q
    text: Nyhan et al. (2023) experimentally reduced like-minded source exposure and found no effect on affective polarization, ideological extremity, or candidate evaluations.
    is implicit: false
  premises:
    claim id: cmorpdifi004f8cjze9a6wp3d
    text: Observational correlations between engagement and out-group content do not establish causation when experimental interventions on the proposed causal pathway produce null effects.
    is implicit: false
  scheme:
    id: cmoqrmt99000i8c7texhpjxa1
    key: methodological_critique
    name: Methodological Critique (NON-STANDARD)
    canonical key: methodological_critique
    catalogue health:
      is argument pattern: true
      is dialogue meta: false
      is test placeholder: false
      canonical key: methodological_critique
      cluster tag missing: false
      fingerprint materialised: true
  critical questions:
    scheme key: methodological_critique
    total: 6
    unanswered:
      cq key: bias_direction_known?
      text: Is the literature really agreed that defects of kind K bias inferences in direction B, or is the bias direction itself contested?
      attack kind: UNDERMINES
      cq status id: cmorpdlxs004o8cjzcohxrcc6
      scheme key: methodological_critique
      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: defect_present?
      text: Does study S actually have defect D, or is the description of S inaccurate?
      attack kind: UNDERMINES
      cq status id: cmorpdlxs004p8cjz69iz7xgf
      scheme key: methodological_critique
      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: magnitude_of_bias?
      text: Is the expected magnitude of the bias from D large enough to overturn S's reported effect, or is the effect robust to plausible bias corrections?
      attack kind: REBUTS
      cq status id: cmorpdlxs004q8cjztkfukf7d
      scheme key: methodological_critique
      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: robustness_check?
      text: Has S (or a follow-up study) performed a robustness check or sensitivity analysis that addresses defect D directly?
      attack kind: UNDERCUTS
      cq status id: cmorpdlxs004r8cjzyis9vcsv
      scheme key: methodological_critique
      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: selective_critique?
      text: Is this critique applied consistently — i.e., would it apply to studies on the other side of the debate that share the same defect kind K?
      attack kind: UNDERCUTS
      cq status id: cmorpdlxs004s8cjz0w32r72c
      scheme key: methodological_critique
      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: triangulation?
      text: Is H supported by independent studies that do not share defect D, such that S's defect does not undermine H itself?
      attack kind: UNDERCUTS
      cq status id: cmorpdlxs004t8cjz4ohaq2zx
      scheme key: methodological_critique
      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: 6
    critical questions answered: 0
    critical questions open: 6
    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: methodological_critique
  groups:
    ORDINARY:
      cq count: 6
      aif exposure: exposed
    ASSUMPTION:
      cq count: 0
      aif exposure: absent
    EXCEPTION:
      cq count: 0
      aif exposure: absent
  lossy: false

cmorpdevn00498cjzcjwv5qcw
type: InformationNode
text: Engagement patterns favoring out-group animosity content do not establish that algorithmic amplification causes affective polarization when direct experimental manipulation of algorithms produces null polarization effects.

cmorpdg2c004b8cjzzvhjojbi
type: InformationNode
text: Guess et al. (2023) directly manipulated the algorithmic feed and found no detectable effect on affective polarization despite substantial changes in content exposure.

cmorpdh8w004d8cjzlz0zoh7q
type: InformationNode
text: Nyhan et al. (2023) experimentally reduced like-minded source exposure and found no effect on affective polarization, ideological extremity, or candidate evaluations.

cmorpdifi004f8cjze9a6wp3d
type: InformationNode
text: Observational correlations between engagement and out-group content do not establish causation when experimental interventions on the proposed causal pathway produce null effects.

cmorpdjy5004i8cjz8pxchl94
type: RA
type: methodological critique
uses scheme: methodological_critique
name: Methodological Critique (NON-STANDARD)
applies scheme key: methodological_critique

Premise
from: I:cmorpdg2c004b8cjzzvhjojbi
to: S:cmorpdjy5004i8cjz8pxchl94

Premise
from: I:cmorpdh8w004d8cjzlz0zoh7q
to: S:cmorpdjy5004i8cjz8pxchl94

Premise
from: I:cmorpdifi004f8cjze9a6wp3d
to: S:cmorpdjy5004i8cjz8pxchl94

Conclusion
from: S:cmorpdjy5004i8cjz8pxchl94
to: I:cmorpdevn00498cjzcjwv5qcw

bias direction known?
type: CriticalQuestion
key: bias_direction_known?
status: open

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmorpdjy5004i8cjz8pxchl94

defect present?
type: CriticalQuestion
key: defect_present?
status: open

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmorpdjy5004i8cjz8pxchl94

magnitude of bias?
type: CriticalQuestion
key: magnitude_of_bias?
status: open

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmorpdjy5004i8cjz8pxchl94

robustness check?
type: CriticalQuestion
key: robustness_check?
status: open

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmorpdjy5004i8cjz8pxchl94

selective critique?
type: CriticalQuestion
key: selective_critique?
status: open

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmorpdjy5004i8cjz8pxchl94

triangulation?
type: CriticalQuestion
key: triangulation?
status: open

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmorpdjy5004i8cjz8pxchl94

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