make an M×N table, highlight places where the fact contradicts the theory
require an explanation for each such place in the current theory
if a new theory is made, add a new column to the table, and evaluate all cells in the new column
I guess this mostly avoids the failure mode when someone uses an argument A to support their theory X, later under the weight of evidence B switches to a theory Y (because B was incompatible with X, but is compatible with Y), and you fail to notice that A is now incompatible with Y… because you vaguely remember that “we talked about A, and there was a good explanation for that”.
The admitted disadvantage is that it takes a lot of time.
Any opinion on this regarding being a somewhat good solution?
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Q3huo2PYxcDGJWR6q/how-to-corner-liars-a-miasma-clearing-protocol
Trying to summarize the method:
list all know facts
list all competing theories
make an M×N table, highlight places where the fact contradicts the theory
require an explanation for each such place in the current theory
if a new theory is made, add a new column to the table, and evaluate all cells in the new column
I guess this mostly avoids the failure mode when someone uses an argument A to support their theory X, later under the weight of evidence B switches to a theory Y (because B was incompatible with X, but is compatible with Y), and you fail to notice that A is now incompatible with Y… because you vaguely remember that “we talked about A, and there was a good explanation for that”.
The admitted disadvantage is that it takes a lot of time.