Yes, yes! Epistemology is important, and the constant barrage of
ungrounded ideas, loose associations, and bad conclusions that pass
for it in forums like this and Usenet calls for response.
I happen to think that the best system found so far for controlled
exercise of reason is the open adversarial system of trials in
English common law (our own court system). It fits especially well
with pan-critical rationalist epistemology, because its central
technique is not a justificationist argument, but a critical cross
examination. John Allen Paulos proposed something like a "science
court" where advocates not only argued thier positions, but could
also question each other and the others' witnesses.
Such an exercise might make an interesting document. Pick a small
number of propositions; find pro and con advocates; let the advocates
draft opening arguments, look at and criticize each others, redraft
them, refine the proposition as necessary, question each other and
the others' evidence, re-examine the answers and follow up, take
questions from a panel of observers chosen adversarially, and let
all of this happen at the level of "discovery"--i.e., not in "open"
court, but in a private forum where the advocates can polish their
final arguments for the show--where all the arguments are edited,
all the questions known and prepared for, and which becomes the
final publication (along with the refined proposition, a list of
stipulations, etc.)
The propositions need not be scientific; in fact, such propositions
would probably be so one-sided that they would be settled early.
Ethical propositions would be interesting, but they should be
narrowly-focused, specific ones, not generalities.
Any resources I can lend to such an effort (my Web site, my
services as advocate or organizer) are hereby offered.