aif version: AIF-Core-2011
mesh aif profile: 1.0
exported at: 2026-08-30T19:16:14.472Z
attestation:
  identifier: wCV7c6Mn
  argument id: cmoxjsof5030t8cssoi1hm35e
  permalink: https://www.isonomia.app/a/wCV7c6Mn
  version: 1
  immutable permalink: https://www.isonomia.app/a/wCV7c6Mn@5442e93f1a84bf0983fe5b6443d6624c2c14314262d64bf0279772e976b229d9
  iso id: iso:argument:wCV7c6Mn
  iso url: https://www.isonomia.app/iso/argument/wCV7c6Mn
  retrieved at: 2026-08-30T19:16:14.334Z
  created at: 2026-05-08T23:30:20.706Z
  updated at: 2026-05-08T23:30:20.706Z
  conclusion:
    claim id: cmoxjsmtt030q8cssqr9w1fp7
    text: Pre-algorithmic confounders including homophily, partisan identity strength, and cable TV are documented to be quantitatively larger contributors to polarization than algorithmic ranking in available studies, though their precise share of post-2012 growth is not established.
  premises:
    claim id: cmoxdk1ip01148cssv8keo7w5
    text: Iyengar et al. (2012) shows affective polarization was substantial in the 1980s, establishing that partisan identity strength predates social media.
    is implicit: false
  premises:
    claim id: cmoxdk2pq01168csski2iin58
    text: Bakshy et al. (2015) found that user choice (homophily) is the larger contributor to ideological exposure filtering than algorithmic ranking on Facebook.
    is implicit: false
  premises:
    claim id: cmoxdk3wv01188cssdsbt5hyg
    text: Eady et al. (2019) found most Twitter users are exposed to substantial cross-cutting content, and Eady et al. (2023) found foreign-influence exposure concentrated in already-polarized minorities with no attitude change.
    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: cmoxjsqom030z8csslp0p2ldd
      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: cmoxjsqom03108cssellxauig
      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: cmoxjsqom03118cssexl970bn
      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: cmoxjsqom03128csssozo14af
      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: cmoxjsqom03138cssdg8hir4u
      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: cmoxash9b002m8css84ta50hr
  author:
    id: 150
    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

cmoxdk1ip01148cssv8keo7w5
type: InformationNode
text: Iyengar et al. (2012) shows affective polarization was substantial in the 1980s, establishing that partisan identity strength predates social media.

cmoxdk2pq01168csski2iin58
type: InformationNode
text: Bakshy et al. (2015) found that user choice (homophily) is the larger contributor to ideological exposure filtering than algorithmic ranking on Facebook.

cmoxdk3wv01188cssdsbt5hyg
type: InformationNode
text: Eady et al. (2019) found most Twitter users are exposed to substantial cross-cutting content, and Eady et al. (2023) found foreign-influence exposure concentrated in already-polarized minorities with no attitude change.

cmoxjsmtt030q8cssqr9w1fp7
type: InformationNode
text: Pre-algorithmic confounders including homophily, partisan identity strength, and cable TV are documented to be quantitatively larger contributors to polarization than algorithmic ranking in available studies, though their precise share of post-2012 growth is not established.

cmoxjsof5030t8cssoi1hm35e
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:cmoxdk1ip01148cssv8keo7w5
to: S:cmoxjsof5030t8cssoi1hm35e

Premise
from: I:cmoxdk2pq01168csski2iin58
to: S:cmoxjsof5030t8cssoi1hm35e

Premise
from: I:cmoxdk3wv01188cssdsbt5hyg
to: S:cmoxjsof5030t8cssoi1hm35e

Conclusion
from: S:cmoxjsof5030t8cssoi1hm35e
to: I:cmoxjsmtt030q8cssqr9w1fp7

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

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmoxjsof5030t8cssoi1hm35e

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

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmoxjsof5030t8cssoi1hm35e

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

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmoxjsof5030t8cssoi1hm35e

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

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmoxjsof5030t8cssoi1hm35e

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

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmoxjsof5030t8cssoi1hm35e

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