Public criticism need not pass the ITT of the people critiqued
People are basically never the villain of their own story. The concepts and frames that people use to view the world are practically always structured such that there is no simple logical argument or plausible empirical fact that would show that what they are doing is morally wrong, both because of selection effects, and because that would open them up to social attack.
This means if you try to just honestly answer the question of whether what someone is doing is bad for the world, you will almost certainly not do it in a way that makes sense from inside of their frame. Therefore, a discussion standard in which you consistently request that people characterize others in a way that passes their Intellectual Turing Test will systematically fail to notice when people are causing harm.
Gödel’s completeness theorem states that every internally consistent theory has a model. I will now take this statement way out of its original domain and say: If someone is wrong, either they are not internally consistent (in which case their ITT will yield a contradiction), or their theory models something that is not this world (in which case their ITT will yield a false prediction).
This suggests that one can (and therefore should) do a sort of cross between ITT and steelmanning, where you start with an ITT of their model, and then apply techniques and standards of good thinking (ideally the most uncontroversially correct ones, like making beliefs pay rent in anticipated experience), until you reach either a contradiction or a prediction which you can then test.
If someone is doing something bad and has a blindspot for it, this technique should be able find that out quite quickly, at least when done by someone who doesn’t share said blindspot. Additionally, it should produce a refutation that is both convincing to bystanders and difficult for the critiqued to refute. Hopefully, the critiqued will then say “OOPS!” and stop whatever bad thing that they are doing. Or, less optimistically, they will attempt to fight said critiques, but lose (if you did this right), because they no longer have any ground to stand on.
Gödel’s completeness theorem states that every internally consistent theory has a model. I will now take this statement way out of its original domain and say: If someone is wrong, either they are not internally consistent (in which case their ITT will yield a contradiction), or their theory models something that is not this world (in which case their ITT will yield a false prediction).
This suggests that one can (and therefore should) do a sort of cross between ITT and steelmanning, where you start with an ITT of their model, and then apply techniques and standards of good thinking (ideally the most uncontroversially correct ones, like making beliefs pay rent in anticipated experience), until you reach either a contradiction or a prediction which you can then test.
If someone is doing something bad and has a blindspot for it, this technique should be able find that out quite quickly, at least when done by someone who doesn’t share said blindspot. Additionally, it should produce a refutation that is both convincing to bystanders and difficult for the critiqued to refute. Hopefully, the critiqued will then say “OOPS!” and stop whatever bad thing that they are doing. Or, less optimistically, they will attempt to fight said critiques, but lose (if you did this right), because they no longer have any ground to stand on.