A public “disagreement ledger”: where reasonable people disagree on a policy, and why

The problem: public debate treats every dispute as a fight between the right and the wrong, so it is hard to see which parts of a disagreement are about facts, which are about values and which are about predictions.

The proposal: for major policies, a short public document separates the points of disagreement into three columns. Disagreements about facts, which evidence could settle. Disagreements about predictions, which time will settle. And disagreements about values, which need discussion. Under each point it lists the best argument on each side and what evidence would change minds. Philosophers who study disagreement ask how we should respond when equally informed, thoughtful people reach different conclusions.

Who acts: independent research institutes or legislative libraries write it; representatives of each side review it for fairness.

Costs and trade-offs: it demands writing skill and neutrality, and some will reject any attempt at balance. The ledger should be revised as evidence arrives.

First step: produce one for a live local issue and test it with residents.