1. To persuade observers who are undecided on the question at issue.

2. To promote understanding of the question at issue.

(others?)

The methods appropriate for achieving one purpose are not necessarily appropriate for achieving the other(s?).

Peter Drucker, in _The Effective Executive_, argues that good decisions must begin with rational *disagreement*. If everyone agrees before the decision, it is a danger sign: it indicates that nobody really understands the issues.

For purpose 2, I find Herman Kahn’s concept of “higher order agreement” to be very helpful:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2008/Q2/mail520.html#Kahn

being give some legitmacy here:

http://lucatrevisan.wordpress.com/2008/12/24/inducing-percussions-in-all-of-mathematics/#comment-1406

Even if people don’t say so, I have to select the path of self-punishment.

Otherwise, both Aristotle & Plato would get angry at me.

If either of them, I might be safe. But never when both.

Self-punishement:

2 decades+ of research: sole, orphan 1 paper.

Dubois-Prade-Godo academic empire wrote to me more than a decade ago:

“After all this MESS, soundness, completeness and fixpoint theory are a complete DARK question”,

After analyzing dozens of REJECTED papers, the result is that ALL is a MESS.

Total MESS.

ZFC is (irreparably) Inconsistent!

Ridiculous Career,

Publicationless author,

Rafee Kamouna.