PROMPT: Could you please read my essay below, provide a short critique of it, and draw me a diagram to represent the framework as I've described it. Here is the essay:

A truth-finding framework based on consensus

[[Internal:Brainstorming_50|Last time]] I verbally commented on a framework for truth-finding, useful for communities to be sure, but also for personal use. Here I will try to discuss the framework at a high level while providing more detail. The framework establishes a method by which we can discuss a subject (ie a thesis) and advance it toward a useful conclusion. It allows us to undertake the process of truth-finding by organizing relevant information and priming us for collaborative truth-seeking behavior. This last point is the one I want to emphasize the most. We are building a social system whose purpose is giving us habits that maximize our probability of uncovering useful truths and cooperating with others in doing so. Let's be clear that we are not going to achieve the "absolute truth" in many, and perhaps most, cases. Our best attempt will probably end up giving us a multidimensional "box" that encompasses the truth as we understand it. Within the box will be the various positions represented by the opinions held by people in a community. As the truth-finding process goes on, we might envision the box getting smaller as we converge toward a point of ideal "truth" without, in many cases, actually getting there. But the box might also get bigger, especially at the beginning, as more viewpoints are represented. This framework aligns with, and is part of, the ratings, voting, and argument-to-predicate breakdown mechanisms we have already discussed. It might be thought of as an overlay on these ideas, a unifying concept to which we can point when asked "where do we stand on X?".

The argument space

Using the system, the first thing we would do in understanding an issue is to create the existing "argument space". This is the box, essentially, with the unmodified perspectives of everyone who contributes. It might include people's personal beliefs, posted beliefs of other thinkers on the issue, etc. The entire range of opinion should be represented over time. This step is akin to a student doing a literature review for their thesis. It includes all that has been done in a particular area of research. So in this system, everyone shows up and gives a statement of their position and why they believe it. They are free to reference other work. With this panorama established, we map out the argument space by identifying and naming each unique position that exists within it. We can even try to graph it (in the box) by seeing which positions are closest to each other. Positions might have dimensions (right-left, private-public, autocratic-democratic, etc) which can also be plotted. Once this is done, we allow the participants to review it to ensure that their position is accurately reflected along with the others. Minor edits, wording changes, and so on would be permitted. But no one at this point is arguing for their position. We are not questioning the facts that other people present. We are simply documenting everything that exists within the box. The only requirement here is that the positions be clearly stated with respect to the thesis. They must relate and be relevant to the thesis. It is at this point that we have our first act of judgement. If a position is deemed outside the scope of the thesis, the community can vote to recommend that it be included elsewhere, in a different thesis. If no such thesis exists, the authors of the non-relevant position can create one. The community's view on inclusion should be quite liberal. Since we are not deliberating about the arguments themselves yet, an apparently irrelevant or obscure position may prove, over time, to be clearly relevant. But we should remove those arguments that are obviously out of scope. What we end up with is an argument space of relevant positions, ones that have a chance at being considered "the truth", either alone or in conjunction with others. What is the point of identifying the argument space and acknowledging the positions? It allows us to step back from a debate about the issue itself. It tempers our instinct to attack others for their beliefs and defend ourselves against similar attacks. It also forces people to think through their positions before stating them. The system could optionally have rules that require a position to be taken before engaging in discussion. Disagreement that can't be overcome is often the result of an overly hasty process in which the participants get "dug-in" prematurely. We need something that enables us to back up and slow down. Let's take another detour here and identify two further reasons why this seemingly simple task is important. First, the position each person has helps to anchor them in a sea of various positions and information. Our thought process is better served by formulating a position, however tenuous, examining the argument space, and modifying our position accordingly. Second, and more importantly, it helps us avoid the [[wikipedia:Dunning-Kruger effect|Dunning-Kruger]] effect. That is, it prevents us from thinking we know something when, in fact, we're so ignorant that we can't accurately estimate our own incompetence. Once we understand the argument space, we are much more likely to approach the subject with the proper degree of humility. These two reasons are admittedly contradictory. We are encouraging people to take a position while acknowledging that what they say may be naive. But there is no way efficient way around this. We can't invent a practical system built around saving face at every turn. Rather, we should assume as we do with children, that mistakes will be made at first but then, through a process of exposure, be reduced. Indeed the framework should permit a position taken to be self-modified as the author sees other positions. Before discussion has even started, participants can adjust their positions in light of new information. Science and economics both offer great examples of these ideas. We may think we know the argument space for the [[Internal:Brainstorming_50#The_Mpemba_effect_--_Truth_in_science|Mpemba effect]] until we see a paper on the [https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.02373 statistical thermodynamics] experiments that have been done confirming a general theoretical basis for it. We may think we know about unemployment but real economists constantly complain that their field is overrun by amateur "experts" -- the Dunning-Kruger effect in its full realization. But we can't stop opining about economics (or science) because it is a key part of public policy. So we opine, get it wrong, and learn. This might be a good time to assert a ground-rule: we assume no one is lying. That is, if someone takes a position, we take it on face value and assume it is made in good faith. This is not exactly the same as assuming everyone is honest. People may, for the sake of argument, take a position contrary to what they really believe. But in this forum, if you say your position is X, then we assume you mean X and accept that. We aren't going to psychically probe your intentions. There is also, bound up in this, an assumption that our positions are well intentioned. There is no malice or evil deceit going on. This system is not a methodology for solving the malicious lying problem. Perhaps it could be modified to solve that problem too, but in this incarnation it doesn't do that.

Agreement

So, after mapping out the argument space, we try to identify areas of agreement or overlap among the positions. This is alot like the original mapping step but here we go down to the sub-argument and predicate levels. For instance, in the [https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/decline-of-christianity-in-the-us-has-slowed-may-have-leveled-off/ Pew religious survey] 86% believe in an extracorporeal "soul". In the [Internal:Brainstorming_48|arguments around the Ludwig paper] everyone felt that inequality was a problem. These are important areas of agreement and hint at truths that might be more important than we originally thought. It is possible that they are so important that they replace the original thesis or start a new, more productive, discussion. Finding agreement also means finding the places of apparent disagreement that are not direct contradictions. To say the unemployment rate is 4.2% but, calculated another way, is 7.6%, seems like a disagreement but is not a direct contradiction. Each side is capable of acknowledging the other's fact without changing their position. Whether we find areas of obvious agreement or have to work to find them, once done, we have elevated a segment of facts into the "true" camp. Until a new challenger comes along, they no longer need to be discussed and we have confined our realm of disagreement to a smaller volume. This exercise alone should change our position on an issue. If we acknowledge both unemployment figures as fact then we are admitting that the unemployment picture cannot be summed up by a single number. This is like saying "its complicated" and shows the community a willingness to accept nuance in further discussion. By contrast, an obstinate refusal to do this begins to reveal some ratable character traits of the involved actors.

Disagreement

We can also, of course, establish the areas of disagreement. If someone doesn't believe in a soul and someone else does, we have an area of pointed disagreement which is tough to reconcile through a nuanced truth. This should be frankly identified and acknowleged by all positions in the argument. Perhaps that is as far as an argument like this can go and our "truth" then becomes the fact of two opposite positions. But before we get to that point, let's try to understand disagreement in terms of some related issues. Disagreement gives us an opportunity to reflect on its importance given the purpose of the argument. The thesis statement for any argument should have a purpose attached to it. Why are we discussing this? What are we trying to get out of the discussion? Is it really to get at an absolute truth? In a religious discussion, most participants will acknowledge the impossibility of this. Is it to simply let others know where we stand? Is it to socialize? Is it to engage in philosophical discussion? Is it to make a policy decision? So, given the purpose, is the disagreement important? If the purpose of the argument is to establish economic policy and we disagree significantly on the amount of unemployment, we have a problem that requires attention. A line of inquiry can then be opened into this specific factual disagreement. If we are debating religion for fun, and we disagree about whether God exists, we may not have a problem at all. Here we simply realize that disagreement is a feature, the source from which the discussion proceeds and is made interesting. Disagreement obviously comes in many forms, depending on the nature of the issue in question. If it's a publicly testable fact (eg unemployment, population of NYC), we open an inquiry to present the related evidence for each position. If it's not publicly testable (ie existence of God), we can allow arguments to continue while acknowledging that we are in a contentious area of truth-finding. If agreement takes place, fine. But if it doesn't, the body of philosophical work and the positions taken reflects the "truth" as best we can discern it. There is nothing further to be done and sometimes the box doesn't really converge. Often disagreement hinges on subjective and private beliefs. Religion is one such belief although it is usually distinguished by an associated body of theology and history that should be considered. Many philosophical positions lie in this camp as well. But truly private beliefs also exist. If we are discussing whether a painting is beautiful, it is easy to acknowledge our inability to to convince anyone of an objective truth. If the purpose of the discussion is to socialize, we further realize that agreement (or truth for that matter) isn't really the point. Going through this thought process keeps the discussion civil and frees us from the obligation of having to reach a conclusion. Sometimes people conflate strongly held private beliefs with objective facts. When this is identified, we can label the resulting disagreement as personal opinion and proceed. If the parties object to such a designation, we can open a line of discussion to resolve the public/private nature of the belief. This should help educate the community about what is and isn't in the public realm. We can, over time, develop rules that certain topics are always in the private realm (eg religion). As Rawls made clear, public discussion must proceed using publicly available methods, and religion isn't one of them. Our communities might face some obstinacy by their members on points like these but this is an easily-ratable characteristic. It would seem that given the proper framework, incentives, and a little education, these concepts will be absorbed easily. We have thus reduced disagreement to that which is factual and important. This is an easier task than where we started but clearly we are not done. Factual disagreement is about resolving the truth using the various theories: correspondence, coherence, consensus, etc. Our first move (another ground rule, perhaps) is to get agreement on the methods by which the truth is established. If the parties involved subscribe to these theories as they are commonly understood, and generally abide by normal evidentiary requirements for proof, we can proceed by simply laying out the evidence on all sides. All the tools we have contemplated continue to be important here: argument deconstruction to predicates, ratings, voting delegation, etc. Admittedly, gaining agreement about the methods might not be easy. One thing we can do to help is to ask what it would take to believe the opposite position. If someone thinks the population of NYC is 1 million, what would it take to make them believe it was 8.2 million? If the response is a census with better checks then we have a method by which to proceed. We can demonstrate how census data is checked. If the response is personally counting up everyone in NYC themselves then we don't have a practical method. Regardless, by closely examining what it takes to create belief, we can often obtain convergence on methodology. Getting to the point of factual disagreement does not imply that we will not face insurmountable obstinacy here too. If participants are convinced of an evil deceiver, for example, we have quite a large problem but one we should by now recognize is not resolvable through a discussion of facts. The [[wikipedia:Evil demon|evil deceiver]] argument states that behind every supposed fact is a hidden force that manipulates the truth to make it appear real. It belongs to a class of claims which are unfalsifiable. These are the basis for all manner of conspiracy theories, accusations of media bias, etc. As such, it is in the realm of the publicly untestable and has no place in serious truth-finding. Falsifiability is an essential characteristic of all fact-based claims, especially in science. The only solution for this particular brand of obstinacy is to identify such arguments clearly and separate them from the main thread. Education and ratings are obviously key to ensuring that these types of distractions remain minor.

The framework as a truth representation in time

At this point, we have completed our basic framework. We have: * Understood the purpose of the discussion. * Agreed, at least in principle, on accepted methods for finding the truth. * Established some ground rules (eg assumption of no lying) * Mapped out the positions and understand them in relation to each other. * Understood the sub-arguments/predicates asssociated with each position. * Know where we have agreement or disagreement. * Understood the importance of disagreements in relation to the thesis and purpose of the discussion. * Grasped the nature of the disagreement and moved it, if necessary, to a separate conversation. * Identified obstinacy in remaining important and factually based disagreements. We can submit this framework to a vote to ensure that everyone involved sees the situation as presented. If not, we can entertain a round of review where new information, clarifications, and rewordings might take place. Let's emphasize here that, although we've alluded to the mechanics of resolving factually-based disagreements, we have not discussed them in detail because we already have ideas in mind to do that. The purpose of this is to construct a framework whereby those ideas can be executed most effectively. At the end of this process, and even if total agreement is obtained on all important factual points, we may still have divergent positions. We've certainly made progress by removing disagreement "cruft" and aligning everyone's behavior in a productive way. But even if we do this and agree on the important facts, there is still the question of how those facts are to be interpreted. An agreed-upon 3% unemployment rate may be fine for some but not for others. Indeed we might agree on all the metrics of unemployment (U3, U6, Ludwig, etc) but still disagree on whether it's a problem we should address or not. Nevertheless, progress has been made. We can now shift the conversation to a different topic, one more likely to lead to a policy resolution. Regardless of the endpoint, our truth framework is simply a statement of where we stand in the discussion along with ratings and the votes taken so far. It changes over time, of course, and participants are asked to continuously re-evaluate their positions depending on the status of our more granular truth-finding processes, the ones we already have methods for. At any point, we can summarize the results, produce a timeline of what has taken place, record the votes, etc. Our "truth" is this framework of perspectives and the status of each position within it. RESPONSE: Thank you for sharing your essay on a truth-finding framework based on consensus. I've read it carefully, and here's my critique along with a diagram representing the framework you've described. ## Critique Your essay presents a thoughtful and well-structured framework for collaborative truth-seeking. Here are the key strengths and areas for potential improvement: ### Strengths: - The framework is comprehensive and methodical, providing a clear process for mapping diverse perspectives. - Your approach balances the need for individual position-taking with collective truth-seeking. - The recognition that "truth" may exist as a multidimensional space rather than a single point is nuanced and realistic. - The distinction between different types of disagreements (factual, subjective, publicly testable vs. private beliefs) is especially valuable. ### Areas for improvement: - The essay could benefit from concrete examples illustrating how the framework would be applied to specific topics or controversies. - While you acknowledge the challenge of obstinacy, more attention could be given to power dynamics and how they might affect participation. - The relationship between this framework and existing deliberative democratic models could be explored to situate your approach within existing literature. - The mechanics for how ratings and voting actually influence the convergence of positions remained somewhat abstract. ```mermaid flowchart TD A[Thesis Statement & Purpose] --> B[Map Argument Space] B --> C[Identify & Name Positions] subgraph "Phase 1: Mapping" C --> D[Graph Position Relationships] D --> E[Review for Accuracy] E --> F[Remove Out-of-Scope Arguments] end F --> G[Identify Areas of Agreement] subgraph "Phase 2: Analysis" G --> H[Identify Areas of Disagreement] H --> I{Assess Importance of Disagreement} I -->|Important| J[Analyze Nature of Disagreement] I -->|Not Important| K[Acknowledge & Move On] J --> L{Type of Disagreement?} L -->|Publicly Testable Facts| M[Open Evidence Inquiry] L -->|Private/Subjective Beliefs| N[Label as Opinion] L -->|Unfalsifiable Claims| O[Separate from Main Thread] end subgraph "Phase 3: Resolution" M --> P[Apply Agreed Methods for Truth-Finding] N --> Q[Accept Plurality] O --> R[Rate & Educate] P --> S[Community Vote on Framework] Q --> S R --> S S --> T[Produce Truth Framework] T --> U[Continuous Re-evaluation] end style A fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px style T fill:#9cf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px style U fill:#9cf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px ``` The diagram represents your framework as a structured process flow with three main phases: 1. **Mapping Phase**: This establishes the argument space by identifying all relevant positions and organizing them in relation to each other. 2. **Analysis Phase**: This evaluates areas of agreement and disagreement, assessing which disagreements are important to resolve and categorizing them by type. 3. **Resolution Phase**: This applies appropriate methods for addressing different types of disagreements, leading to a community-validated truth framework that remains open to continuous re-evaluation. The framework effectively captures how communities can move from diverse perspectives toward consensus through a structured approach to agreement and disagreement. The emphasis on continuous re-evaluation underscores your point that truth-finding is an ongoing process rather than a one-time achievement. Would you like me to elaborate on any specific aspect of the critique or diagram?