The point isn't to be right. The point is to notice when the field decided "good enough" was good enough.
A working notebook of arguments I've had with myself, written down so I can see whether they hold up. Each issue takes a confidently-held framework and tries to find where the assumptions stopped getting checked.
Most of these start the same way: someone smart said something confident, and I couldn't shake the feeling that the confidence was doing more work than the argument.
The point isn't to overturn anything. It's to find the moment the field stopped checking — and ask whether that moment was earned. If the argument holds up under scrutiny, that's information. If it doesn't, that's also information.