What should I call my critical method?

I’m often criticising arguments in a style that could be characterised as:

• Literal-minded
  
  I think I’m more inclined than most people to look at the literal meaning of what people say. I’m relatively less inclined to accept non-literal interpretations that may appear more plausible.
  
  

• Unforgiving

  
  Relatedly, I’m not as positive about the Principle of Charity as most people are. I think that poor arguments should be seen as such, and not reinterpreted for the sake of charity.
  
  

• Detailed

  
  I tend to look at the finer details of exactly what people are saying, and how it’s supposed to establish their conclusion. (Some would no doubt call this pedantic.)

  
  

• Dispassionate
  
  I try to be as detached as I can when I analyse arguments. For instance, I’m willing to criticise arguments for conclusions I endorse. And I think that to reason well, it’s key to restrain your emotions. (This isn’t to say I always succeed.)

I’m wondering what to call this critical method, and would be grateful for suggestions. (Relatedly, if you think my method has other distinctive features besides those listed above, please comment on that as well.)

One term that I’ve used previously is argument-checking. When I came up with that term, I obviously did so in analogy with fact-checking. Fact-checkers try to improve the standards of our discourse by checking false or misleading claims. But that’s just part of the problem, since people also mislead through fallacious arguments. So I reasoned that we also need argument-checking, and started scrutinising the arguments in opinion pieces and TV debates.

But as a name for my method, it might be a bit too broad and general. There are many ways you could analyse arguments, and “argument-checking” doesn’t seem to capture what is distinctive about my approach.

Another term that I’ve used more recently is epistemic discipline (or disciplined thinking). But that may also be a bit too general—along another dimension, as it were. It does capture my attitude, but it doesn’t say anything about the specific application: criticisms of the arguments of others.

So couldn’t we combine these two terms to “disciplined argument-checking”? I suppose we could, but it’s a bit of a mouthful. And it could be good to have a word that’s more specific than “discipline”.

Here are some suggestions, mostly taken from Claude:

• Pedantic Precision

• The Literal Lens

• Literal Logic

• Strict Scrutiny

Ideally, I’d want a name that’s fairly striking and specific, and yet encompasses or suggests all relevant features of my method. This may be a reason to go with a name like “pedantic” or “literal” rather than something like “dispassionate”. I think that “literal” suggests dispassion more than “dispassionate” suggests literal-mindedness.

One idea some people have suggested is something relating to my own name, e.g. “Schubertisms”. But the problem with that is that people who don’t already know my work won’t understand such a label. I’d prefer something more descriptive.

All name suggestions are welcome, but please avoid giving joke suggestions, since they derail the discussion. Suggestions that are based on original takes on what my method is are particularly appreciated.