Man, I'm reaaaaally getting irritated by the lack of interconnectivity on our web content. There are so many things I'm reading today that would benefit from either being linked to an article disproving them, or being used as links to disprove other things.

Human knowledge is really disparate right now. This is more important than it has been in the past, because the public forum non-experts talk in has become universal, allowing non-experts to A) team up with other non-experts and B) appear to be very authoritative to even-less-experts.

I don't think this is a fundamental problem. I think the problem is that there's no centralized regions for arguing this shit out: instead, people generally just stick to people who share their own insular beliefs. A centralized space for structured arguing would be very useful.

The closest we have is Wikipedia, but they are not interested in or capable of moderating arguments on any topic.

I really want to create, say, a wiki. It would be about proving or disproving things using logic and sources. Similar to Wikipedia, except for the debunking (and bunking) of opinions. It would have to have a "cellular" style to it, allowing people to target specific parts of a statement and link to a page which supports, supplants, or disproves that piece of the statement. And, of course, both the linked article and the link itself are subject to commentary, proof, disproof, and supplantation...

Then, when someone says "X is true!" you can send them over to the "X is true!" page on the wiki, which goes over all the arguments in favor of X (as written by someone who believes in X) and disproves or supports them.

Maybe it could be called "The Proving Grounds" or something.
Shared publiclyView activity