[FRIAM] Strawman/Steelman

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

At first I agreed with your 3 priorities. But as I worked on some other stuff, I think some doubt has crept in. Each of the bullets has some uncertainty around it. Some things are pretty much but not entirely *certainly* correct. But most things have high uncertainty. Evidence can be slight, plentiful, coherent, contradictory, etc. (E.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/01/28/the-uncensored-guide-to-oumuamua-aliens-and-that-harvard-astronomer/?sh=a5319286abec) And it's difficult for any one clique to know when some thing is novel/new or unique. I have that problem all the time (e.g. Steve's pointing out that the DoD had this long-standing definition of Strawman that I knew nothing about ... new to me, but not new.)

I suppose you can simply add qualifiers:

1) are mostly correct
2) have coherent evidence
3) are novel for some given context

Re: Weinstein's Evergreen mistake, I think he screwed up all 3 of them and refused to admit he made any mistake.

On 1/29/21 2:00 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I would say to boost signals concerning claims that,
> 
> 1) are correct
> 2) have evidence
> 3) are novel
> 
> Other types of signals can be attenuated.   Realistically, the media follows this principle above all else:
> 
> 4) have an audience

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ