I recently ran across Nick Bostrom’s idea of subjecting your strongest beliefs to a hypothetical apostasy in which you try to muster the strongest arguments you can against them.
This is generally known as playing the devil’s advocate, and its an idea that long predates Nick Bostrum.
Playing the devil’s advocate is when Alice is arguing for some position, and Bob is arguing against it, even though he does not actually disagree with Alice (perhaps because he wants to help Alice strengthen her arguments, clarify her views, etc.).
Hypothetical apostasy is when Alice plays her own devil’s advocate, in essence, with no Bob involved.
… And that is not a new idea either. “Allow me to play the devil’s advocate for a moment” is a thing people say even when they are expressing support before and after that moment.
This is generally known as playing the devil’s advocate, and its an idea that long predates Nick Bostrum.
Playing the devil’s advocate is when Alice is arguing for some position, and Bob is arguing against it, even though he does not actually disagree with Alice (perhaps because he wants to help Alice strengthen her arguments, clarify her views, etc.).
Hypothetical apostasy is when Alice plays her own devil’s advocate, in essence, with no Bob involved.
… And that is not a new idea either. “Allow me to play the devil’s advocate for a moment” is a thing people say even when they are expressing support before and after that moment.