| 1 | "What unexamined assumption in my worldview about apostasy decriminalization might be holding back broader alliances, and how could testing it reshape my strategy?" | |
| 2 | a counter-criticism just needs to refute the original criticism outright. How does this apply to tie-breakers in practice? | |
| 3 | tie breaker example: In economics, Keynesian vs. Austrian schools—both explain recessions but differ on intervention. How would CR break a seeming tie here? | |
| 4 | How can we scale Critical Rationalism globally to dismantle dogmatic systems, like apostasy laws, while aligning AI to amplify human progress? brainstorm implementation strategies | |
| 5 | How to apply CR to verify political violence data? | |
| 6 | how, upon identifying an epistemological flaw (like my error of suggesting confirmation builds theories, which CR refutes), we break it down: Critique the assumption, test against refutation principles, and refine our understanding iteratively to better embody progress through falsification over justification. It's a prompt for self-improdded learning on such concepts. | |
| 7 | How do we structure discussions to automatically emphasize refutations, minimizing inductive errors from the start? | |
| 8 | In meta-discussions on response crafting, how to preempt format errors like char overflows? | |
| 9 | How does applying CR to meta-tasks like response formatting reveal tensions with fixed rules, and how to resolve them? | |
No comments:
Post a Comment