LW has always maintained that factionalized debate does not promote good epistemic rationality, but it seems that it does have some redeeming qualities after all.
It has redeeming qualities, compared to sensitivity discourse. It doesn’t mean it’s the best you can do.
I recall seeing a proposed hierarchy on argument strategies once. That sound familiar to anyone?
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.
It has redeeming qualities, compared to sensitivity discourse. It doesn’t mean it’s the best you can do.
I recall seeing a proposed hierarchy on argument strategies once. That sound familiar to anyone?
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.