These are generic questions people could consider before discussing a topic in a philosophical way, especially controversial topics. They can make discussion more rational or organized. They can help people recognize their ignorance and weaknesses better, and encourage people to approach thinking in better ways. You could ask yourself these questions, ask others, or both.
These questions are only useful or appropriate sometimes, not for any discussion. I'm mostly sharing them because I think they're interesting. I think they can be useful for self-reflection or asking some sometimes. In cases where asking them doesn't work well, there's something interesting to explore there about what the problem is. I comment on the questions more after sharing them.
The Questions
Do you want to talk about [topic]?
Do you think you know much about it?
How did you get your knowledge about it?
Do you think your conclusions are stable, well-thought-out ideas? So if you changed your mind, would that be significant to you?
What have you done to learn about ideas that disagree with you on this topic?
What have you done to learn about being unbiased? What practice activities have you done to get better at this?
What have you done to learn about rational debate? What practice activities have you done to get better at this?
Do you have an understanding of the whole problem situation, including your view, rival views, and prerequisite ideas that the topic builds on?
Does your understanding of your premises (and premises' premises, etc.) go all the way back to philosophy? If not, where does your understanding of premises stop and why? And do you put any other premises prior to philosophy?
Does your conclusion rely on any evidence or factual claims which are controversial or not well-known? If so, what?
What are some smaller points that, if you’re wrong about them, you'd change your mind about the overall topic?
Please outline the boundaries of relevance for the topic. Do you think anyone reasonable disagrees?
Do you think you’re skilled at dealing with details, mid-level ideas, and abstract concepts? If not, which are you missing, and what do you do to deal with those weaknesses?
What have you done to find global optima and avoid local optima for this topic?
Do you have a cause-and-effect diagram for this topic?
Are you trying to change anything about the wider world in relation to this topic?
Are you trying to change anything about yourself or a few people you know?
What motivates you to be interested in this topic?
Do you have goals for this topic? Problems you’re trying to solve?
Why prioritize this topic over other topics?
Do you think you have approached the topic in a non-tribalist way and investigated it like an unbiased scientist or rational philosopher?
Are you in an exploratory phase where you haven’t reached a conclusion yet and you’re just gathering and considering ideas?
Comments
People often rush into discussions with little consideration of the situation and little planning. Unfortunately, many people don’t want to respond to these kinds of questions. They think considering this stuff is too much work. They prefer more disorganized, unplanned discussions, without clear goals, which end whenever they feel like it. So it can be hard to use these questions with most people to get answers followed by an extended, serious discussion which benefits from the preliminary questions.
But the questions are still useful. They present concepts about how rational people could approach issues and discussions. You can ask yourself the questions. You can sometimes ask other people a few of the questions. If someone takes these questions well, you can view that positively. You can use these questions to filter people out. If someone won’t consider these things, that can also make it less mysterious when the conversation later gets stuck without anyone learning much.
The full list of questions is too hard for beginners or even intermediate-level thinkers. If someone is willing to admit to being a beginner (or intermediate), that's fine, and you can skip most of the questions and be more forgiving. If someone claims to be an expert who already has the correct answers, then it's fairer to ask a lot of hard questions and expect them to be able to handle it. Please don't use these questions to intimidate honest learners who don't pretend to be something they're not. But if someone claims to be an expert who knows the correct answers that other people should listen to and accept, and (s)he finds the questions too intimidating, there's something wrong there.
Many people won't actually say they think they're an expert, but they won't identify as a beginner either, and they post things that give off thought leader vibes like they think they're telling you correct ideas that you should listen to. If someone posts stuff that seems designed to teach others (and has no disclaimers), they ought to have expertise, and asking them some hard questions is fair. My questions apply best for topics that involve a lot of judgment, research and critical thinking. You could be an effective math teacher, with genuine expertise at math, without knowing how to answer some of the questions. Math teachers mostly teach uncontroversial ideas, whereas my questions are more oriented towards debatable controversies.