Why not just write the article, post it in the discussion area and see what people think of it?
ETA: In this post lukeprog suggested some ideas for useful articles. The most interesting suggestion in my eyes was this:
Informal Fallacies as Errors in Bayesian Reasoning. Just as science errs or succeeds as it agrees with probability theory, informal fallacies are justified only in so far as they agree with Bayes. A recent summary of this is here.
I’ve read the paper but didn’t feel like writing it up; but it’s interesting, and relevant to addressing questions like “what is a compelling argument?” and “how can one identify an unsound argument?”
I suggest you write up or comment on (elements of) that paper, if you want to write an interesting and relevant article on good argumentation for Less Wrong.
Why not just write the article, post it in the discussion area and see what people think of it?
ETA: In this post lukeprog suggested some ideas for useful articles. The most interesting suggestion in my eyes was this:
I’ve read the paper but didn’t feel like writing it up; but it’s interesting, and relevant to addressing questions like “what is a compelling argument?” and “how can one identify an unsound argument?”
I suggest you write up or comment on (elements of) that paper, if you want to write an interesting and relevant article on good argumentation for Less Wrong.