From my first substack essay:
I want to encourage a non-tribal intellectual style. I am eager to read Julia Galef’s The Scout Mindset. Based on the reviews, I would agree with her praise for what she calls the scout mindset and also with her disparagement of what she calls the soldier mindset.
I have gone so far as to devise a scoring system for op-ed pieces, podcasts, long blog posts and essays written by public intellectuals.
Subscribe for free. RSS at substack feed
I would like to reiterate my suggestion of a scoring category for explicit articulation of “Tipping Points”, which I believes captures multiple dimensions of rigor, civility, humility, accountability, self-correction, falsifiability, coherence, and evidence-basing aimed at by the FIT 2.0 scoring categories. It would pressure intellectuals to focus on ways that disagreements could be resolved at least in principle by appeal to sources of contention, which is a sine qua non for productive discussion and hints at profitable areas for future investigation.
Have you considered deducting points for providing demonstrably false facts to support an argument?