Activity Feed
Welcome to Veritula, Brad.
Feel free to chime in on one of the existing discussions to get started: https://veritula.com/discussions
We also have a Telegram channel you’re welcome to join. I can send an invite.
What brings you to V? What are your main interests?
Interesting insight from TheBentist on Instagram. He’s a dentist making a new toothpaste.
He says cavities are caused by a bacterium called strep mutans. A popular misconception says cavities are caused by sugar. That’s not exactly right: strep mutans feeds on sugar and then ‘poops’ out an acid that corrodes your teeth. But sugar itself does not cause cavities – it only feeds strep mutans that’s already there.
The thing is, people aren’t born with strep mutans in their mouths. And they don’t get it from food. They get it from other people who already have it. Like when parents kiss their kids or share food. I’m guessing things like ‘double dipping’, sharing utensils, or drinking from the same bottle are especially problematic.
TheBentist made a toothpase called ‘Zero Pro’ that supposedly kills strep mutans. Conventional toothpastes just scrub it off your teeth. Zero Pro is said to actually kill it. So my understanding is that you could never get cavities again as long as the strep mutans is dead.
That would also eliminate the need for mouthwash, which he calls a ‘scorched-earth approach’ that kills a lot of good bacteria.
Fact-check me on this stuff. I’m not a dentist myself. I’m not giving any medical advice. But this toothpaste sounds interesting and promising to me. Somebody is actually thinking about the root cause of oral disease, and trying to fix it rather than find ways to live with it.
How to tell you’re ahead, objectively:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-hwx-mUfjAg
I found a clip of Milton Friedman refuting my point:
… prohibition encouraged alcoholism rather than the opposite. To the young people in particular, it became an adventure to go out and get drunk, to go to a speakeasy. Today, with heroin illegal, it pays a heroin pusher to create an addict because, given that it’s illegal, it’s worth his while to spend some money on getting somebody else hooked. Because once hooked, he has a captive audience. If heroin were readily available everywhere, it wouldn’t pay anybody to create an addict, because the addict could then go anywhere to buy.
So if drugs were legal, sellers would have little to no incentive to turn their customers into addicts since the customers could go anywhere to get the drugs. Also, the sellers could always get new customers, so they don’t need to get customers addicted in the first place.
I found a clip of Milton Friedman refuting my point:
… prohibition encouraged alcoholism rather than the opposite. To the young people in particular, it became an adventure to go out and get drunk, to go to a speakeasy. Today, with heroin illegal, it pays a heroin pusher to create an addict because, given that it’s illegal, it’s worth his while to spend some money on getting somebody else hooked. Because once hooked, he has a captive audience. If heroin were readily available everywhere, it wouldn’t pay anybody to create an addict, because the addict could then go anywhere to buy.
So if drugs were legal, sellers would have little to no incentive to turn their customers into addicts since the customers could go anywhere to get the drugs. Also, the sellers could always get new customers, so they don’t need to get customers addicted in the first place.
In short, making drugs illegal makes them more dangerous, not less.
#4967·Dennis Hackethal, 3 days agoThis is a fair point. I’ve seen videos out of Portland, OR, where most (all?) drugs have effectively been legalized, and public parks are an absolute shit show now.
Opponents of legalization like to point to this footage as evidence that legalizing drugs doesn’t work. But I think it just goes to show that if we’re going to legalize drugs, we also need to abolish public property. (We should do that regardless.)
Regulation begets more regulation. Once you have public property, you need to pass laws about what you will and won’t have on said public property. Conversely, just removing those laws without also abolishing public property causes trouble.
No half measures.
#4338·Dirk Meulenbelt, 3 months agoIn today's society they only have this ability to a limited degree, and would still have to deal with the drug users in public.
This is a fair point. I’ve seen videos out of Portland, OR, where most (all?) drugs have effectively been legalized, and public parks are an absolute shit show now.
Opponents of legalization like to point to this footage as evidence that legalizing drugs doesn’t work. But I think it just goes to show that if we’re going to legalize drugs, we also need to abolish public property. (We should do that regardless.)
Regulation begets more regulation. Once you have public property, you need to pass laws about what you will and won’t have on said public property. Conversely, just removing those laws without also abolishing public property causes trouble.
No half measures.
#4339·Dirk Meulenbelt, 3 months agoIf the drug + violation becomes a pattern, it's rational to outlaw it. (Assuming the outlawing works.)
E.g. alcohol is prohibited for drivers, even for drivers who are great drunk drivers.
In limited areas like driving it makes sense because people don’t drive 24/7. But outlawing something in general affects them 24/7. So it’s not the same thing.
#4339·Dirk Meulenbelt, 3 months agoIf the drug + violation becomes a pattern, it's rational to outlaw it. (Assuming the outlawing works.)
E.g. alcohol is prohibited for drivers, even for drivers who are great drunk drivers.
If drugs were legal, they’d be less dangerous, see #4964. If alcohol were illegal, error correction (including correcting safety errors) would get harder not easier.
#4380·Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoI have zero experience on the drug market, but I think it’s fair to assume that companies that want to get business by inhibiting people’s creativity rather than enhancing it don’t particularly care about consent.
I don’t expect honest advertising from such people. I expect trickery, not consent.
I found a clip of Milton Friedman refuting my point:
… prohibition encouraged alcoholism rather than the opposite. To the young people in particular, it became an adventure to go out and get drunk, to go to a speakeasy. Today, with heroin illegal, it pays a heroin pusher to create an addict because, given that it’s illegal, it’s worth his while to spend some money on getting somebody else hooked. Because once hooked, he has a captive audience. If heroin were readily available everywhere, it wouldn’t pay anybody to create an addict, because the addict could then go anywhere to buy.
So if drugs were legal, sellers would have little to no incentive to turn their customers into addicts since the customers could go anywhere to get the drugs. Also, the sellers could always get new customers, so they don’t need to get customers addicted in the first place.
#4960·Knut Sondre Sæbø revised 12 days agoJust pointing out that language tends to describe things as having properties. For example, "the flag is red." But that isn't really accurate; it's more that we perceive the flag as red. The flag doesn't actually possess the property of redness.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you but this still sounds different from languages just having different grammar. Some languages just don’t have the subject-predicate structure you spoke of. Still, people who speak them can state true things.
#4960·Knut Sondre Sæbø revised 12 days agoJust pointing out that language tends to describe things as having properties. For example, "the flag is red." But that isn't really accurate; it's more that we perceive the flag as red. The flag doesn't actually possess the property of redness.
Then that statement, as you just wrote it, may not have any pending criticisms, in which case we assume it’s true. As long we treat ideas as discrete and immutable, even when there’s overlap, we can always still say true things.
One of the problems with cynicism, IMO, is that it ends up with pseudo-problems of language rather than genuine philosophical problems. I think that was one of the big issues with DD’s talk on statements vs. propositions.
Just pointing out that language tends to describe things as having properties. For example, "the flag is red." But that isn't really accurate; it's more that we perceive the flag as red. The flag doesn't actually possess the property of redness.
Just pointing out that language tends to describe things as having properties. For example, "the flag is red." But that isn't really accurate; it's more that we perceive the flag as red. The flag doesn't actually possess the property of redness.
Just pointing out that language tends to describe things as having properties. For example, "the flag is red." But that isn't really accurate; it's more that we perceive the flag as red. The flag doesn't actually possess the property of redness.
Just pointing out that language tends to describe things as having properties. For example, "the flag is red." But that isn't really accurate; it's more that we perceive the flag as red. The flag doesn't actually possess the property of redness.
Just pointing out that language tends to describe things as having properties. For example, "the flag is red." But that isn't really accurate; it's more that we perceive the flag as red. The flag doesn't actually possess the property of redness.
#4955·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 13 days agoGood idea, but one more question first. When you say a different language with different categories could also make true statements, do you mean truth is just any description that maps onto the states of the world? If so, it seems you can have multiple (indefinitely?) different carvings that all give coherent descriptions of those states.
I spoke of different grammar, not categories.
#4952·Dennis HackethalOP, 15 days ago…the subject-predicate structure…
What could grammar have to do with this? A different language that uses different grammar can still make true statements.
By the way, continuing here may not be in your interest because #4930 breaks the criticism chain. If your goal is to refute the notion that ideas can be true, you’ll probably want to connect your next criticism to #4915 somehow, or one of the ideas above it.
Good idea, but one more question first. When you say a different language with different categories could also make true statements, do you mean truth is just any description that maps onto the states of the world? If so, it seems you can have multiple (indefinitely?) different carvings that all give coherent descriptions of those states.
#4950·Dennis HackethalOP, 16 days agoBut to verify absolute truth you would need to know every possible criticism of an idea.
But we don’t need to verify our ideas. As I wrote in #4891, there’s no criterion of truth to tell that an idea is true. But it can still be true.
That's true. This wasn't meant as an argument against realist truth, and it's probably beside the point I'm making anyway. I was just drawing a distinction: an absolute truth can exist, but without a god's eye view we can never know whether our theories correspond to it.
This could be a promising approach to formalize HTV:
https://x.com/FZdyb/status/2051352500582641931
https://github.com/deoxyribose/hard_to_vary_posterior_predictive
It’s AI generated, so not eligible for the bounty. And I’m not familiar enough with the probability calculus to evaluate it. But bookmarking it here for the future.
(One of my first criticisms was that HTV has nothing to do with likelihood, which the author granted but addressed by saying it maps onto marginal likelihood. See https://x.com/FZdyb/status/2051004605601898561 and surrounding discussion.)
#4947·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 17 days ago"Fact about the world" seems too strong to me. There can be many good explanations of the same reality that carve it up differently. Newton's theories still work pretty well, but Einstein's have a more complete mapping onto reality. I agree "it's raining" has something real grounding it. But "rain" as a category, the subject-predicate structure, water as droplets, just seem to be features of our description. My notion of fact might just be wrong. The idea I have in my head when I think of facts is that the concepts we use are definite ontological categories in reality.
…the subject-predicate structure…
What could grammar have to do with this? A different language that uses different grammar can still make true statements.
By the way, continuing here may not be in your interest because #4930 breaks the criticism chain. If your goal is to refute the notion that ideas can be true, you’ll probably want to connect your next criticism to #4915 somehow, or one of the ideas above it.
#4944·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 18 days agoI completely agree with the definition in 4894. But to verify absolute truth you would need to know every possible criticism of an idea. Without a god’s eye view, you can’t know if your ideas are fallible to a criticism you haven’t detected.
A better framing of what I mean might be «closer to truth». If the theories are consistent with more perspectives (big objects, people, small objects etc.), it is closer to truths. Newton’s theory is in that sense closer to truth than Ptolemy’s geocentric theory.
A better framing of what I mean might be «closer to truth». If the theories are consistent with more perspectives (big objects, people, small objects etc.), it is closer to truths. Newton’s theory is in that sense closer to truth than Ptolemy’s geocentric theory.
This sounds like verisimilitude, which Popper worked on a bunch. As I recall, David Miller refuted it toward the end of Popper’s life. Popper was still around to accept the refutation.
I’m not aware that anyone restored or vindicated verisimilitude. But even if someone did, we’d need to formalize and quantify it. Just saying “Newton’s theory is in that sense closer to truth than Ptolemy’s geocentric theory” would be too vague IMO.
#4944·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 18 days agoI completely agree with the definition in 4894. But to verify absolute truth you would need to know every possible criticism of an idea. Without a god’s eye view, you can’t know if your ideas are fallible to a criticism you haven’t detected.
A better framing of what I mean might be «closer to truth». If the theories are consistent with more perspectives (big objects, people, small objects etc.), it is closer to truths. Newton’s theory is in that sense closer to truth than Ptolemy’s geocentric theory.
But to verify absolute truth you would need to know every possible criticism of an idea.
But we don’t need to verify our ideas. As I wrote in #4891, there’s no criterion of truth to tell that an idea is true. But it can still be true.
This comprehensive playlist of Karl Popper videos is sure to have some videos of his you haven’t seen: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIQtm033Fi_N1ZCu2ElpqrJ_pXNWLk3WW
Simple Refutation of David Deutsch’s ‘Hard to Vary’:
https://libertythroughreason.com/simple-refutation-of-david-deutschs-hard-to-vary/
#4939·Dennis HackethalOP, 18 days agoWhen you say it's 100% true that it's raining, "the facts" you correspond to are already facts within that framework, and not reality.
I think of them as facts of reality. I don’t think about ‘frameworks’. I think the idea of frameworks invites relativism.
We don’t need the molecular level for this. Truth is a very simple concept. No need to complicate it.
"Fact about the world" seems too strong to me. There can be many good explanations of the same reality that carve it up differently. Newton's theories still work pretty well, but Einstein's have a more complete mapping onto reality. I agree "it's raining" has something real grounding it. But "rain" as a category, the subject-predicate structure, water as droplets, just seem to be features of our description. My notion of fact might just be wrong. The idea I have in my head when I think of facts is that the concepts we use are definite ontological categories in reality.
Beating procrastination is simpler than you think:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/a_UTkkSZhzs