# Discussion trees
**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees/518
**Category:** Unbounded
**Created:** [February 28, 2022, 1:29am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees/518 "2022-02-28T01:29:11Z")
**Posts on this page:** 5
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@lmf](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/lmf)
#### Post date: [February 28, 2022, 1:29am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees/518/1 "2022-02-28T01:29:11Z")
**Topic Summary:** In this thread, I am going to go through various ~completed conversations and try to make discussion trees for them. I’m doing it publicly so that people can point out mistakes if they see any.
**Goal:** Get better at philosophy by learning discussion trees better.
**CF relevance:** Obvious.
**Do you want unbounded criticism? (A criticism is a reason that an idea decisively fails at a goal. Criticism can be about anything relevant to goal success, including methods, meta, context or tangents. If you think a line of discussion isn’t worth focusing attention on, that is a disagreement with the person who posted it, which can be discussed.)** Yes.
---
### Author:  [@lmf](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/lmf)
#### Post date: [February 28, 2022, 1:30am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees/518/2 "2022-02-28T01:30:57Z")
I attempted to do my own tree of this example [Curiosity – Discussion Trees With Example](https://curi.us/2229-discussion-trees-with-example), without looking at Elliot’s tree (edit: without looking at Elliot’s tree _until afterwards_).
My tree differed more from Elliot’s tree than I thought it would.
I don’t really know how to articulate this, but the nodes in Elliot’s tree seem way more atomic, and serve clearer purposes. E.g. I liked how ET translated the “I was not aware opinions were not allowed here” comment into what it really meant, which is that it was answering the implicit question _why are you contradicting me if you don’t believe in debate?_ with the non-sequitor _because opinions are allowed here._
[02-27-tree\_1.pdf](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/short-url/i3YuSgI0QAPbTXksCNvZe8XdoU9.pdf) (44.6 KB)
---
### Author:  [@lmf](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/lmf)
#### Post date: [February 28, 2022, 1:32am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees/518/3 "2022-02-28T01:32:52Z")
actually, uploading it as a png because it’s more convenient
---
### Author:  [@lmf](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/lmf)
#### Post date: [February 28, 2022, 1:35am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees/518/4 "2022-02-28T01:35:03Z")
I tried another one too. There’s an amusing exchange between Elliot and A in the comments of this same blog post, so I made a tree for that, and tried to make it a little more like Elliot’s tree in the sense I described above.
I left a lot of stuff out of the tree. I decided to stop when I got to comment #14082 because there’s no natural place to put it in the tree, it ignores Elliot’s replies, and A is repeating stuff he said earlier.
In hindsight, there wasn’t much back and forth in this conversation so I’m not sure if it was the best example to practice on.
---
### Author:  [@lmf](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/lmf)
#### Post date: [February 28, 2022, 10:12pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees/518/5 "2022-02-28T22:12:12Z")
Here’s one for the discussion Alan and I had about quantization. It covers everything from the beginning all the way through until the line on [this post](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/quantization-string-theory/494/29), after which I start to ask Alan to give his own reason for why he thinks partially quantum mechanical theories are bad. I see that line as basically starting the conversation anew with my better understanding of what Alan means by partially/fully quantum mechanical theory, and if I was going to put it in the tree it would be a new tree.
