Fleshed out the structure of the thesis a bit

(not actually written much new yet)

doc/AgainstTruth.md

@@ -12,8 +12,6 @@ This document is in two parts: a  statement of a problem, and an account of an a
 
 The second part starts with an  account of a system built by the author in collaboration with  Peter Mott, describing particularly how the problem was addressed  by this system; subsequent chapters will describe the development  of a further system, in which the analysis developed in the first  section will be applied.
 
-This document deals only with  explanation. Issues relating to inference and especially to truth  maintenance will undoubtedly be raised as it progresses, but such  hares will resolutely not be followed.
-
 ## Note on the quality of the text
 
 Much of this text was written between 1986 and 1988 on Xerox 1108 and 1186 workstations, in their native WYSIWYG document system, and printed as hard copy; and some was written on the very first generation of Apple Macintosh computer, and again printed as hard copy. The text here is the consequence of scanning the hard copy and running optical character recognition on the scans. It isn't perfect. I am proof reading as I go and I hope that it will improve.
@@ -29,6 +27,9 @@ Much of this text was written between 1986 and 1988 on Xerox 1108 and 1186 works
 1. [The Problem](TheProblem.html)
 2. [History](History.html)
 3. [Analysis](Analysis.html)
+4. [On Hegemonic Argument](HegemonicArgument.html)
+5. [The Huxley/Kropotkin debate](HuxleyKropotkin.html)
+6. [The Bateson/Kammerer debate](BatesonKammerer.html)
 
 ### Part Two: Into the wild wood
 
@@ -39,9 +40,10 @@ Much of this text was written between 1986 and 1988 on Xerox 1108 and 1186 works
 5. [Implementing](Implementing.html)
 6. [Experience](Experience.html)
 
-### Endmatter
+### Endmatter: bringing it all together
 
-1. [Errata](Errata.html)
+1. [J'Accuse](JAccuse.html)
+2. [Errata](Errata.html)
 
 ----
 [Adams, 1978](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy)

doc/Analysis.md

@@ -653,12 +653,7 @@ It appears that Achinstein's motivation in producing a new account has
 less to do with addressing these real world problems than with overcoming such
 philosophical puzzles as the Paradox of the Ravens; so his account takes
 us no nearer to providing a model which will support the construction of
-better common sense explanations. 5
-
-A \[ mh L/Go/w%\` \\
-
-\` Eegozi
-
+better common sense explanations.
 
 ## Toulmin
 
@@ -973,26 +968,26 @@ the explicandum onto the theory, or body of belief, which we currently hold.
 intend to draw on examples from two genuine debates, drawn in this instance from
 the development of the theory of evolution. These debates are
 
-The debate between Huxley and Kropotkin over whether co-operation or
+> The debate between [Huxley and Kropotkin](HuxleyKropotkin.html) over whether co-operation or
 competition was the more important factor in the survival of species.
 
-Kropotkin, a leading Anarchist, sought to show that human beings (among
+> > Kropotkin, a leading Anarchist, sought to show that human beings (among
 other animals) were inherently co-operative, and (implied conclusion)
 would get along fine in the absence of government. Huxley, a Tory,
 sought to show that, on the contrary, competition (and, implicitly, capitalism)
 red in tooth and claw was 'natural'.
 
-The debate between Bateson and Kammerer over whether acquired
+> The debate between [Bateson and Kammerer](BatesonKammerer.html) over whether acquired
 characteristics were inherited.
 
-Kammerer, then the only scientist capable of breeding many species of
+> > Kammerer, then the only scientist capable of breeding many species of
 amphibian in captivity, showed in a series of experiments that
 characteristics aquired by parents were inherited by their offspring.
 Bateson, in a series of increasingly virulent attacks, ultimately
-claimed that these experiments were fraudulent. As no-one else was even capable of
-breeding the creatures involved, they could not be repeated.
+claimed that these experiments were fraudulent. As no one else was even capable of
+breeding the creatures involved, the experiments could not be repeated.
 
-Kammerer was a communist, and the implicit argument behind his work
+> > Kammerer was a communist, and the implicit argument behind his work
 was that human beings were perfectable; that some parts of the benefits
 of humane education and culture would be transmitted. Bateson was again a
 Tory, though not as politically committed as the other figures discussed.

doc/BatesonKammerer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# The Bateson / Kammerer debate
+
+{ TODO: analyse the style and motivations of the Bateson / Kammerer debate, drawing out the use of polemic and rhetoric to achieve hegemony }

doc/Bialowieza.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Bialowieza
 
-{ this chapter is in active development }
+{ this chapter is in active development; quite a lot of the technical detail in this chapter at present will probably end up in [Implementing](Implementing.html), while additional high level and conceptual design, as it develops, will be here. }
 
 ## Why Bialowieza?
 
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ The attentive reader will note that some of the proposed privileged keys map clo
 * that `:truth` and `:confidence` are both `qualifiers` of the claim in the sense of the **Q** term;
 * that `:authority` is a form of `backing` in the sense of the **B** term.
 
-So what, then, is an 'argument structure', as described above? It seems to me that it may be exactly a proposition, with the special feature that the data is not minimised.
+So what, then, is an 'argument structure', as described above? It seems to me that it may be exactly a proposition, with the special feature that the value of the `:data` key is not minimised.
 
 #### Proposition minimisation
 
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ The object of building Bialowieza as a library is that we should not constrain h
 
 In Arboretum and later in KnacqTools, default values of features were determined by the 'knowledge engineer', normally by asking the domain expert, and were fixed for the knowledge base at all times. But these two programs each reasoned about one case at a time, and did not store knowledge about multiple cases.
 
-These systems could this be said to be *prejudiced*, to the extent that knowledge of the world acquired over time did not change their default judgements. Wildwood holds knowledge on potentially very many objects, and that knowledge may change dynamically over time, both as the world changes and as new things which already existed in the world become known.
+These systems could thus be said to be *prejudiced*, to the extent that knowledge of the world acquired over time did not change their default judgements. Wildwood holds knowledge on potentially very many objects, and that knowledge may change dynamically over time, both as the world changes and as new things which already existed in the world become known.
 
 Suppose we wish to decide the truth value of the proposition
 

doc/HegemonicArgument.md

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+# Hegemonic Argument
+
+{ new chapter, beginning a sequence which argues that the purpose of argument is to achieve hegemony, not find truth. In this chapter we'll cover the sources we've used already, and show that the philosophers of science,
+whatever they claim about the purpose of argument, actually argue in a highly polemical, persuasive manner, seeking to achieve widespread belief of their chosen position - that is, to achieve hegemony; and further, even those who make strong claims to the value of candour are frequently not candid in their own argument }

doc/HuxleyKropotkin.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# The Huxley / Kropotkin debate
+
+{ TODO: analyse the style and motivations of the Huxley / Kropotkin debate, drawing out the use of polemic and rhetoric to achieve hegemony }

doc/JAccuse.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+# J'Accuse
+
+{ Conclusion of the thesis.
+
+title of this chapter may change, but it needs to be confrontational and polemical.
+
+Draw together all that has been learned in parts one and two into a single, closely argued polemic, in best academic style. }