Have you come across anything that gives concrete methods for articulating unstated premises?
One of the things certain people with superpowers seem to do in the Feynman-esque tradition of having a list of unusual methods and unusual problems is have a core loop composed of a pretty flexible representation that they try to port everything in to. Then the operations that they have for this representation acts as a checklist and they can look for missing or overdetermined edges between vertices or what have you (in this case a graph, I don’t know how people think without graphs. Maybe graphs are a memetic virus).
Have you come across anything that gives concrete methods for articulating unstated premises?
One of the things certain people with superpowers seem to do in the Feynman-esque tradition of having a list of unusual methods and unusual problems is have a core loop composed of a pretty flexible representation that they try to port everything in to. Then the operations that they have for this representation acts as a checklist and they can look for missing or overdetermined edges between vertices or what have you (in this case a graph, I don’t know how people think without graphs. Maybe graphs are a memetic virus).
edit: found these
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Formal%20Argument%20Analysis.htm
https://slideplayer.com/slide/15828804/
A list of common bad premises
https://conceptspace.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_General_Semantics_Concepts
Thinking at the Edge gives an excellent process for this.
+1 TatE is underrated relative to focusing.