Are you worried you may be engaging in motivated reasoning, rationalization … or committing other reasoning fallacies?
I propose the following epistemic check using Elicit.org’s “reason from one claim to another” tool
Whenever you have a theory that A→B, Take your theory negating one side or the other (or the contrapositive of either negation), and feed it into this tool.
Feed it A→¬B
and/or ¬A→B,
and see if any of the arguments it presents seem equally plausible to your arguments for A→B.
If they seem similarly plausive, believe your original arguments and conclusion less.
Caveat: the tool is not working great yet, and often requires a few rounds of iteration, selecting the better arguments and tell.ing it “show me more like this”, or feeding it some arguments.
A possible check against motivated reasoning using elicit.org
Are you worried you may be engaging in motivated reasoning, rationalization … or committing other reasoning fallacies?
I propose the following epistemic check using Elicit.org’s “reason from one claim to another” tool
Whenever you have a theory that A→B,
Take your theory negating one side or the other (or the contrapositive of either negation), and feed it into this tool.
Feed it
A→¬B
and/or
¬A→B,
and see if any of the arguments it presents seem equally plausible to your arguments for A→B.
If they seem similarly plausive, believe your original arguments and conclusion less.
Caveat: the tool is not working great yet, and often requires a few rounds of iteration, selecting the better arguments and tell.ing it “show me more like this”, or feeding it some arguments.