Epistemic legibility: being easy to argue with is a virtue

Falsifiability is about grounding out in an experiment that can be performed. Epistemic legibility is a generalization of the concept, where the arguer highlights the cruxes of potential disagreement, and points to whatever evidence they feel is convincing--whether that's experiments you can replicate, official records, expert opinions, or their own introspection.

> I see examples of people demanding citations for reasoning that is part of a work, of people just not understanding something, or of only really being able to blindly follow based on province or authority without trying to reconcile back to what they know.

That’s a tricky one for me because I see a lot of utility in asking for sources:

a) Curiosity. Maybe I really want to know how this person came to believe what they did even if I’m pretty sure they’re wrong.

b) Challenge. A version of the Socratic Method, helping them learn through questioning their assumptions.

c) Learning. A genuine quest for knowledge, that perhaps might yield more unique or varied results than Google.

d) Depth. Possibly helping others in a public thread (or the author) realize that it might be an epistemically illegible argument requiring greater scrutiny, discussion or evidence.

I get that asking for sources can also be lazy or ill intentioned, but for the most part I don’t mind it.

Yeah, but P(Valid Critique | Source) is low. For instance, behold as I use it illegitimately against you: "Would you mind linking to where you've seen this use of 'Source?'?"

Besides, legibility is about the argument - it doesn't make sense to talk about a "Source". The source is me. I am the one making the argument.

Statements of fact aren't arguments. "There is a giant octopus besieging NYC right now". There's no argument there. It is merely a statement.

An example legible argument is:

- There is likely a lot of squid ink covering NYC

- This is likely because there is a positively colossal squid creature floating above NYC at the moment

- Squid creatures (colossal or otherwise) discharge ink when attacked

- We are attacking this humongous monstrosity

In fact, "Source?" works better against a legible argument since you can identify which part needs the extra stuff. This argument is fairly legible and is practically just syllogisms. It's merely the case that a premise is wrong - something which you can conclude by asking for the source for a crucial premise.

With an illegible argument, you could debunk the source of one of the claims and still be unable to trace its impact on the conclusion.

For instance:

It's probably raining in NYC right now because it's kind of the conditions that would cause rain if you know what I mean. But there's also this squid creature in the air. It rains when there's squids. Here, read this article about colossal squid ink rain. We all know that squid rain is a thing.

No, "that's gibberish" means "I can't tell whether it goes against factual truths, because I can't tell what it's actually claiming."

[Edit: And one of the marks of at least some kinds of BS is that it tries to obscure what is actually being claimed, so that you can't disprove it.]