But I think there was one with levels beyond “refutation of the central point”. More of a “delimit and extend”, where you show the bounds of validity of an argument, and what’s true more generally beyond those bounds.
Still, at the end, one has refuted something. I think the highest levels should find the value in the argument you’re refuting, and incorporate it into your own result. Synthesize, instead of refuting.
This one of Paul Graham?
That’s a pretty good one. Thanks.
But I think there was one with levels beyond “refutation of the central point”. More of a “delimit and extend”, where you show the bounds of validity of an argument, and what’s true more generally beyond those bounds.
Better Disagreement
Looks like Paul Graham+.
Still, at the end, one has refuted something. I think the highest levels should find the value in the argument you’re refuting, and incorporate it into your own result. Synthesize, instead of refuting.