I’d worry about isolated demands for rigor, and I’d expect that unpopular people/ideas got challenged to a debate much more often than popular ones. This is a tax on contrarianism.
People should be free to state whatever they want. And you and I are free to ignore them if they don’t justify it. They don’t have to update on my disagreement any more than I have to update on their broken model (I would like to update if they have new evidence, though).
Um ok, but like, you know how people already do the thing I’m trying to gesture at, for good reasons, but really poorly, with all the costs and not that much of the benefit? What if we did it a little bit better, with some more of the benefit and not more costs?
I’d worry about isolated demands for rigor, and I’d expect that unpopular people/ideas got challenged to a debate much more often than popular ones. This is a tax on contrarianism.
People should be free to state whatever they want. And you and I are free to ignore them if they don’t justify it. They don’t have to update on my disagreement any more than I have to update on their broken model (I would like to update if they have new evidence, though).
Um ok, but like, you know how people already do the thing I’m trying to gesture at, for good reasons, but really poorly, with all the costs and not that much of the benefit? What if we did it a little bit better, with some more of the benefit and not more costs?