There is not a natural alliance of contrarians. Instead, each contrarian group claims that it has been unfairly lumped in with the others. Sure, they say, most contrarians are wrong, but if you look carefully at our case, ours isn’t like those others; we happen to be right. So
What is needed is a more fine-grained way to argue than just listing pros and cons for the main point. Arguers should dissect each others' arguments and assent or dissent to each individual supporting claim or inference made by the other arguer.
The process should be represented with an argument graph, so it is visually clear which points are assented or dissented or left unaddressed.
They tell themselves that they are right and thus want a chance to prove it. But they might well shy away from such a chance if offered, once they realize that they have doubts.
"contrarians could usefully ally together to support institutions that better allow correct contrarians to prove their case to skeptical audiences...distinguish correct from incorrect contrarians"
seems unlikely to me that contrarians, as a group, are especially inclined to want the correctness of their views to be assessed
In an ordinary court setting, there is no expectation for the jury to be very capable. They are only meant to represent average citizens and give their opinion as such. It is the role of the pro and con advocates to explain any technical details in such a way that the people in jury can understand them.
Why not:1) Have a pool of potential jury members2) Select actual members randomly from the pool3) Offer some of the case fee as compensation for participating as a jury (to encourage participation in the first place)
What is needed is a more fine-grained way to argue than just listing pros and cons for the main point. Arguers should dissect each others' arguments and assent or dissent to each individual supporting claim or inference made by the other arguer.
The process should be represented with an argument graph, so it is visually clear which points are assented or dissented or left unaddressed.
They tell themselves that they are right and thus want a chance to prove it. But they might well shy away from such a chance if offered, once they realize that they have doubts.
"contrarians could usefully ally together to support institutions that better allow correct contrarians to prove their case to skeptical audiences...distinguish correct from incorrect contrarians"
seems unlikely to me that contrarians, as a group, are especially inclined to want the correctness of their views to be assessed
In an ordinary court setting, there is no expectation for the jury to be very capable. They are only meant to represent average citizens and give their opinion as such. It is the role of the pro and con advocates to explain any technical details in such a way that the people in jury can understand them.
High status jurors might not be very capable either.
Would a jury of random Bush and Kennedy family members be suitable for judging some technical or scientific subject?
It depends a lot on what kind of status you're measuring.
But they you get average people as jurors. Who aren't very capable of judging hard issues.
Why not:1) Have a pool of potential jury members2) Select actual members randomly from the pool3) Offer some of the case fee as compensation for participating as a jury (to encourage participation in the first place)
No need for a status app?