my most important point here is to approach this as an unsolved “product development” problem
This is a good take. I’d take it one step further and suggest that an even-more material product is the ideal target.
Some of this may be obvious, but for sake of clarity: there exists a process of attempting to identify assumptions which comprise a model which projects to the potential disagreement, for all possible disagreements. In the case of unstated or unnoticed supporting assumptions, this may involve identifying significantly differing probabilities placed on some assertion, and working backwards to identify its supports. Tracking this process explicitly via one or more belief networks, on a whiteboard, a sheet of paper, or even better, purpose-tailored software, allows for reasoners to identify where they may have a crux, and directly focus on building out or otherwise contending with its supports. Reasoners may prefer to produce their own separate belief networks and attempt to merge them.
Mapping out belief networks leads to probability distributions for assertions following from the combinatorics of the supports. When an assertion is under-supported relative to the reasoner’s credence, this is made highly visible. The structure makes it apparent when an argument is hand-waved rather than contending with it via the supports it should have or via offering conflicting supports, and helps to fix attention on unfinished work implied by the raising of each assertion. Many rhetorical techniques would rightly fail under these conditions. It also makes for a high utility game of solitaire, whether in advance of an upcoming double crux with another reasoner or not.
A drawback is that some reasoners may prefer not to reveal all of their supports, as in the case of those which may contain infohazardous or exfohazardous content, or ones which may cause those things to be easier to derive or notice. In some cases, reasoners may prefer to engage in this sort of protocol in private, with the option to multilaterally make the results available after-the-fact.
This is a good take. I’d take it one step further and suggest that an even-more material product is the ideal target.
Some of this may be obvious, but for sake of clarity: there exists a process of attempting to identify assumptions which comprise a model which projects to the potential disagreement, for all possible disagreements. In the case of unstated or unnoticed supporting assumptions, this may involve identifying significantly differing probabilities placed on some assertion, and working backwards to identify its supports. Tracking this process explicitly via one or more belief networks, on a whiteboard, a sheet of paper, or even better, purpose-tailored software, allows for reasoners to identify where they may have a crux, and directly focus on building out or otherwise contending with its supports. Reasoners may prefer to produce their own separate belief networks and attempt to merge them.
Mapping out belief networks leads to probability distributions for assertions following from the combinatorics of the supports. When an assertion is under-supported relative to the reasoner’s credence, this is made highly visible. The structure makes it apparent when an argument is hand-waved rather than contending with it via the supports it should have or via offering conflicting supports, and helps to fix attention on unfinished work implied by the raising of each assertion. Many rhetorical techniques would rightly fail under these conditions. It also makes for a high utility game of solitaire, whether in advance of an upcoming double crux with another reasoner or not.
A drawback is that some reasoners may prefer not to reveal all of their supports, as in the case of those which may contain infohazardous or exfohazardous content, or ones which may cause those things to be easier to derive or notice. In some cases, reasoners may prefer to engage in this sort of protocol in private, with the option to multilaterally make the results available after-the-fact.