I thought Robin meant: Let the Less Wrong community sort through the information and see if there is a consensus arises on one side or the other.
Oddly, no—although I think that would be a good exercise to carry out at intervals, I was imagining the theoretical solo game that each commenter played before bringing evidence to the community. Which has the difficulties that komponisto mentioned, of there not being prominent pro- and con- communities available, among other things.
Oddly, no—although I think that would be a good exercise to carry out at intervals, I was imagining the theoretical solo game that each commenter played before bringing evidence to the community. Which has the difficulties that komponisto mentioned, of there not being prominent pro- and con- communities available, among other things.
I’m thinking:
Define the claim/s precisely.
Come up with a short list of pro and con sources
Individual stage: anyone who wants to participate goes through the sources and does some addition research as they feel necessary.
Each individual posts their own probability estimates for the claims.
Communal stage: Disagreements are ironed out, sources shared, arguing and beliefs revised.
Reflection: What, if anything, have we agreed on. It would be a lot harder than the Knox case but it is probably doable.
Yes, that’s it. I don’t think enough time has passed to get around to another such exercise, however.