|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
The REDICO Formula Users of such a method should acknowledge the fact that propositions, in virtually all cases, are based on limited contexts of knowledge, and that disagreements can be subtle, based on something important or on incomplete knowledge of the evidence. This implies that disagreements must be quantified and evaluated on the basis of this quantification. Furthermore, the method must help to zoom in quickly on the problem areas. Such a method has been proposed by Denis Labelle, a member of the Sceptiques de Quebec, and is called the REDICO Formula. REDICO is an acronym for "REcherche des DIscontinuites entre les COnclusions"--the search for discontinuities between conclusions. It consists of posting a number of propositions, with one's numerical evaluation (a simple percentage of approval) of each proposition. Then the other person also evaluates these propositions, and can propose his own. There are, of course, some rules which facilitate the use of REDICO. First, a discussion based on REDICO should be a straightforward application of its principles--that is, arguing should be discouraged, while it may be done on the sidelines. REDICO is not a technique of debate, it is a technique of discussion--more exactly, of resolution of conflicting conclusions by quickly finding the conflicting premises. The best propositions are, of course, the clearest and especially the most measurable ones. For example, "P1: Leonard Peikoff is an idiot" is not a good proposition, because it is difficult to evaluate. But "P1b: Leonard Peikoff does not understand the difference between certainty and rational confidence" is a better proposition, because it can be measured (albeit with difficulty). And of course a proposition about a quote made by the person would be even easier to measure. If a participant decides that a given proposition is not clear enough, he may suspend evaluating it--but he must then give his own proposition based on the problem preventing him from evaluating the first. For example, someone could refuse to answer to P1 above and propose P1b instead. By convention, the person who posts a proposition is the first to evaluate that proposition. The other participant(s) must then evaluate every proposition in turn, and propose their own. A rule of not more than three propositions per turn should keep the process from inflating too much, as is its wont, and propositions must follow the logical chain or topic at hand. Evaluations may be revised, but such revisions must be marked clearly. And of course, one must always remember that complementary propositions add up to 100%. Here is a little example of a REDICO that I had with Denis. We start with a disagreement on the proposition: "We are the universe made manifest to itself." Franc: F1: We are an integral part of the universe. F 99% F2: We are conscious of our own existence. F 99% Denis: F1: We are an integral part of the universe. F 99% D 100% Therefore, 99% agreement F2: We are conscious of our own existence. F 99% D 98% Therefore, 99% agreement Since F1 and F2 are noncontroversial, there is no need to dwell on them. Denis D1: "We" refers to all human beings, past, present, and future D 96% Franc: D1: "We" refers to all human beings, past, present, and future D 96% F 50% Therefore, 54% agreement D1 is controversial and is therefore a good subject. And so on and so forth. And so on. One can use the letters to track to which chain a particular proposition belongs. This method has a number of advantages: * It discourages bombastic rhetoric and flaring tempers; rather, it encourages participants to analyze a disagreement more clinically. * It forces all to quantify disagreements which would otherwise be left to the subjective evaluation of the other fellow. * It allows participants to avoid wasting time on things on which people agree. * It permits the participants to get quickly to the root of a disagreement in conjuction with Rand's Razor (note that the efficiency comes in, not in the presentation of facts, but rather in evaluating deductions). * It makes it easier to examine an issue under numerous angles and viewpoints. I think REDICO, due to its generality, is a flexible method which can be applied to more axes than simple true-false valuing (and its corollaries, such as good-evil). It no doubt could be applied, for example, in a comparison of artistic evaluations. While Rand's Razor would be more difficult to use in this case, it may yield interesting patterns of results. And REDICO can get you started.
Discuss this Article (3 messages) |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
