I'm sorry, but I think this is exactly wrong. Framing the exchange of evidence as a competition is part of what makes people so irrational in the first place.
Much real scientific evidence exchange is a good-hearted competition between academics. You have to want to refute mistakes, but you also have to tolerate losing if you can't refute the opposition. This was intended to teach both sides.
Follow-Up to: On Juvenile Fiction
Related to: The Simple Truth
I quote again from JulianMorrison, who writes:
Anonym adds:
With this in mind, here is my challenge:
Look through Eliezer's early standard bias posts. Can you convey the essential content of one of these posts in a 16-page picture book, or in a nursery rhyme children could sing while they skip rope?
Write the story, and post it here. Let's see what we can come up with.
This is not, by any means intended to be a simple challenge. On the one hand, we are compressing a lot of information into a small space. On the other, good fiction is not easy, and children's fiction is no exception.
We have two options. We can humbly admit that we are not skilled writers of children's fiction and walk away, or we can determine that this is a task which needs to be completed, produce lots of really bad fiction, and begin the process of criticizing one another, learning from our mistakes, and growing stronger.
When I was a boy, I had a thick book of 365 short stories, some not even taking up a full page. Each was self-contained, and I could flip open the book at random and find a story I hadn't read before.
How quickly would our community grow, both in strength and in numbers, if we could crowdsource a
Rationalist's Book of Tales?I know, I know. It's optimistic. It's ambitious. Most of all, it seems really silly.
Let's do it anyway.