I think it’s not primarily a question of how much to disagree – as I said, we see plenty of disagreement every day on the forum. The issue I’m trying to address is:
with whom we disagree,
how visible those disagreements are,
and particularly I’m trying to highlight that many internal disagreements will not be made public. The main epistemic benefit of disagreement is there even in private, but there’s a secondary benefit which needs the disagreement to be public, and that’s the one I’m trying to address.
To me it seems that just having the debate on <topic> is more interesting than the meta debate of <is org’s thinking on topic sloppy>.
The necessity of thinking about the second question is clearest when deciding who to fund, who to work for, who to hire, etc.
I think it’s not primarily a question of how much to disagree – as I said, we see plenty of disagreement every day on the forum. The issue I’m trying to address is:
with whom we disagree,
how visible those disagreements are,
and particularly I’m trying to highlight that many internal disagreements will not be made public. The main epistemic benefit of disagreement is there even in private, but there’s a secondary benefit which needs the disagreement to be public, and that’s the one I’m trying to address.
The necessity of thinking about the second question is clearest when deciding who to fund, who to work for, who to hire, etc.
makes sense, agree completely