As far as being predictive, I think I’ve done a clear job of that already. I’m not just saying you can fit any disagreement into my model with enough mental gymnastics; I’m saying that doing so is concretely useful in guiding the resolution of that disagreement. My model could very well be overly flexible or generally incorrect in some cases, but it’s the most useful model for this topic that I’ve come up with. If you think modelling disagreements at the strategy level is more useful, I would greatly enjoy reading your post on how to make use of that for conflict resolution.
As far as being predictive, I think I’ve done a clear job of that already. I’m not just saying you can fit any disagreement into my model with enough mental gymnastics; I’m saying that doing so is concretely useful in guiding the resolution of that disagreement. My model could very well be overly flexible or generally incorrect in some cases, but it’s the most useful model for this topic that I’ve come up with. If you think modelling disagreements at the strategy level is more useful, I would greatly enjoy reading your post on how to make use of that for conflict resolution.
If Is considerations are like Aristotle’s Material Cause
Ought considerations like Final Cause
Language considerations like Formal Cause (if we extend language to include non-verbal but still symbolic representations of other sorts as well)
Then we only need to add Efficient Cause.