Personally if I were trying to do this I’d probably aim to do a combination of:
Identify what kinds of reasoning people are employing, investigate under what conditions they tend to lead to the truth. E.g. one way that I think I differ from many others is that I am skeptical of analogies as direct evidence about the truth; I see the point of analogies as (a) tools for communicating ideas more effectively and (b) locating hypotheses that you then verify by understanding the underlying mechanism and checking that the mechanism ports (after which you don’t need the analogy any more).
State arguments more precisely and rigorously, to narrow in on more specific claims that people disagree about (note there are a lot of skulls along this road)
Personally if I were trying to do this I’d probably aim to do a combination of:
Identify what kinds of reasoning people are employing, investigate under what conditions they tend to lead to the truth. E.g. one way that I think I differ from many others is that I am skeptical of analogies as direct evidence about the truth; I see the point of analogies as (a) tools for communicating ideas more effectively and (b) locating hypotheses that you then verify by understanding the underlying mechanism and checking that the mechanism ports (after which you don’t need the analogy any more).
State arguments more precisely and rigorously, to narrow in on more specific claims that people disagree about (note there are a lot of skulls along this road)