What would online discourse look like if it enforced falsifiability as a first-class constraint?
I'm considering building a simple platform. You can:
• Post a conjecture — a falsifiable claim, written clearly.
• Include falsification criteria — what observable data would disprove it.
• Others can post refutations — counterexamples, data, logical flaws, or proposed experiments.
• The author can revise the conjecture, with a full version history.
• Eventually: status shifts (e.g. “published”), prediction markets, and epistemic reputation scores.
The goal isn’t to predict things better than Metaculus or argue better than Twitter. It’s to treat falsifiability as a UX constraint and see what that changes.
Why I think this might matter:
Rationalist and forecasting spaces often emphasise Bayesian updating... (read 241 more words →)
I guarantee this would reduce tax revenues.