New science of deliberation

Arguments suck. On all levels - personal, political, literary and scientific. Science perhaps offers the best example of how we can build a productive structure on top of a bunch of people flinging mud at each other. We can do better.

Why would we think that any significant improvement could be made to a centuries-old pattern? Is it not simply human nature to argue? Why would you think that other than encouraging an element of civility, we can expect to do anything better than three thousand years of philosophy?

Some say, many in fact, that competition is the answer - the only answer. Certainly competition is at the heart of our most productive systems, and to throw it out completely would be destructive, but there is far more to the science of deliberation than nature, red in tooth and claw. Nature may be angry, but it is also curious. Genes may be selfish, but symbiotic collaborations abound.

A new science of deliberation needs to be built on: - New forms of writing - New incentive structures - New theory of knowledge, and finally a... - New-new

That is it is to deal with both the art of understanding people, not just as they are, but also how they wish to be. This is not a descriptive science, nor is it a prescriptive or predictive science. It is a performative science.

# See also