Hi, I'm a philosopher specializing in epistemology and rationality. I learned about Karl Popper's Critical Rationalism from my mentor David Deutsch and I helped with his book The Beginning of Infinity. That gives a sense of the general point of view I'm coming from. I have two main things to suggest which are mostly independent but synergize well.

I developed improvements on Critical Rationalism, which I named Critical Fallibilism, which center around evaluating ideas in a binary way using decisive arguments rather than weighing arguments or evidence (which, like induction, doesn't actually work).

And I developed a plan for how to make progress in the world: encourage all public intellectuals to have written debate policies which specify in advance what debates they will accept and how they will behave in those debates. The goal is to have a merit-based system by using political philosophy concepts like rule of law (we write laws down in advance) and transparency. This challenges the current system focused on social climbing, not merit, where intellectuals frequently arbitrary ignore challenging ideas and outliers, follow inexplicit biases, and have little accountability. Because many intellectuals told their fans they're rational, the fans may be interested in holding them to it and seeing them debate in ways where they risk losing.

The underlying philosophical issue is that debates enable error correction, whereas refusing to debate is a way to stay wrong even when living people know corrections to your errors that they're willing to share (also, refusing to debate doesn't correct other people's errors in cases where you're right). Debate can happen via essays, forums and other formats, not just stage debates. Debate policies are a specific case of a broader concept, rationality policies, which are important for combatting bias. Giving people rationality tips and then saying to do their best, unconstrained by specific predetermined policies, isn't effective enough for addressing bias.

People sometimes claim they can't debate because it'd take too much time, but this is typically an excuse: yes there are valid concerns around time and good strategies are needed, but instead of trying to figure out how to make it work, I've seen many people rush to the conclusion that it can't work. They don't seem to actually want to make debate work, hear the strategies for saving time I've developed, or try to create any strategies of their own. Overall, I don't think there are enough rational intellectuals in the world with high social status, so I propose a popular movement.

These two ideas complement each other because decisive arguments allow debates to reach conclusions (currently most debates are inconclusive) and debates allow philosophy ideas to be impactful instead of ignored.

I don't know if people here would be interested in learning about these ideas or debating them. I found, for example, that the Effective Altruism community was unwilling to discuss these ideas or have organized debates about anything (including veganism, AGI and other issues they emphasize). I wrote a lot of criticism and analysis about EA but despite all the stuff they say about rationality and wanting criticism, they largely ignored my criticism. An issue that comes up with many communities or schools of thought is that people don't take personal responsibility for answering questions or criticisms because they think someone else can do it, and there can be hundreds of people thinking that and then no one actually answers a critic. Similarly, people will often say things like "There are lots of essays that refute Popper." and then dismiss Popper without specifying any essay in particular that they endorse and will take any responsibility for errors in.