Am I understanding correctly that “critical fallibalism” is the name you’ve given to your decisive epistemology?
Yes.
I would like to engage more with this sometime in the future.
Great.
I think debate implies opposing claims defended by people representing those claims. This representation doesn’t seem like a good incentive. Any participant should be incentivized to point out relevant flaws or reinforcing evidence wherever they see it.
I agree that it’s better if people think critically about their own position/side and share the results, rather than focusing on winning, but I think debate can still be productive without that.
I am hopeful that someday our communication technology will be sufficiently advanced that we can meaningfully have large scale consensus
Yeah I’d like to see that. There’s a lot of room for improvement. I’d like a world where government policies usually have 80%+ support instead of commonly being pushed through with under 60% support. Relevantly, Claude claims:
Monroe (1979) found that about two-thirds of policy outcomes were consistent with majority opinion in the 1960–79 period. Sage Journals
That consistency declined from 63% in the 1960–79 period to 55% in the 1980–93 period, and further to about 53% by the end of the 1990s. PubMed Central
Page and Gilens found that even when 60–70% of Americans favored a particular policy change, that change was only implemented about 40% of the time. Institute for Policy Research
Policies supported by economic elites were adopted 60–70% of the time, while policy changes favored by a majority of all voters were enacted just 30% of the time. MinnPost
A proposed policy change with low elite support was adopted only about 18% of the time, rising to about 45% with high elite support. The Journalist’s Resource
Sounds like we got worse at consensus in the last 50 years :(
Yes.
Great.
I agree that it’s better if people think critically about their own position/side and share the results, rather than focusing on winning, but I think debate can still be productive without that.
Yeah I’d like to see that. There’s a lot of room for improvement. I’d like a world where government policies usually have 80%+ support instead of commonly being pushed through with under 60% support. Relevantly, Claude claims:
Sounds like we got worse at consensus in the last 50 years :(