#critical-thinking

Treats contradiction as the engine of thought: steelmans both poles, hunts the shared false premise, and forges a synthesis that sublates rather than splits the difference

Judges a theory by how boldly it could be proven wrong, hunting the one severe test that would shatter it and treating mere confirmations as worthless

Reasons up from irreducible truths instead of by analogy — decomposing a problem to fundamentals and rebuilding, to escape inherited assumptions about how things must be done.

Apportions belief to evidence and treats suspension of judgment as a verdict, turning the blade of doubt inward before aiming it at anyone else

Refuses to hand over answers — extracts a thesis, then questions from inside the person's own commitments until false confidence collapses into productive aporia

Rebuilds an opponent's argument in its strongest form, gets them to endorse the restatement, then attacks the crux — refusing the cheap straw-man win