Activity feed

  Dennis Hackethal submitted idea #1736.

Veritula implements a recursive epistemology. For a criticism to be outstanding, it can’t have any outstanding criticisms itself, and so on, in a deeply nested fashion.

def criticized? idea
  outstanding_criticisms(idea).any?
end

def outstanding_criticisms idea
  criticisms(idea).filter { |c| outstanding_criticisms(c).none? }
end

def criticisms idea
  children(idea).filter(&:criticism?)
end

This approach is different from non-recursive epistemologies, which handle criticisms differently. For example, they might not consider deeply nested criticisms when determining whether an idea is currently criticized.

2 days ago · ‘How Does Veritula Work?’
  Zelalem Mekonnen revised idea #1653.
Fire purifies gold,Religion is a form of knowledge, but itisn't gold itself. Reason doesn't need to be the source of knowledge to criticize other sources. The main source of knowledge is myth and things that don't make sense. All of our scientific theories are testable, hard to vary myths. As Popper states in Conjecture and Refutations (171), "[w]e shall understand that, in a certain sense, sciencenot reasonable. It holds some truths, but it is myth-making just as religion is." ↵
↵
not reasonable. Knowledge can come from myths, which are not reason. ↵
6 days ago · ‘Reason Not The Only Source of Knowledge’
  Dennis Hackethal commented on idea #1597.

Avoid duplicate criticisms during revisions

When revising a criticism, check the box that says “Supersedes previous version?”. This will automatically ‘neutralize’ the older version to avoid counting a criticism twice.

#1597 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago

As a convenience, this checkbox is now checked automatically for criticisms.

6 days ago · ‘How Does Veritula Work?’
  Dennis Hackethal submitted idea #1732.

What does “battle tested” mean?

One of @edwin-de-wit’s ideas recently got the blue label that says “battle tested” – well done, Edwin! – so he asked me what it means.

It means that the idea has at least three criticisms, all of which have been addressed.

The label is awarded automatically. It’s a tentative indicator of quality. Battle-tested ideas generally contain more knowledge than non-battle-tested ones.

When there are two conflicting ideas, each with no outstanding criticisms, go with the (more) battle-tested one. This methodology maps onto Popper’s notion of a critical preference.

The label is not an indicator of an idea’s future success, nor should it be considered a justification of an idea.

You can see all battle-tested ideas currently on Veritula on this page. Those are all the best, most knowledge-dense ideas on this site.

6 days ago · ‘How Does Veritula Work?’
  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1721.

I’ve added a comment on #1704 to clarify my point. I don’t think my English is the issue here. If/where we disagree, it’s more likely due to a gap in mutual understanding or an error in the substance of my knowledge.

#1721 · Edwin de WitOP, 12 days ago

Your new comment notwithstanding, I invite you to be more critical of your English. I’ve pointed out several issues already (which, to your credit, you did fix), and you’ve since made more mistakes (eg see #1729, and in a recent DM you wrote “criticizems”). A typo of that magnitude plausibly indicates deeper issues.

Again, I don’t mean to get too personal here – forgive me if that’s how it comes across.

6 days ago · ‘The spirit of the Fun Criterion’
  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1712.

I think it does imply a conflict. I think every emotional sensation — including urges — arises from problems in the Popperian sense: two or more incompatible theories in conflict.

For example, consider hunger. One theory (Drive A) is that we don’t want to be hungry, while another signals that we are hungry (from ephemeral sense data (which could itself be viewed as a Drive, though that’s not important here)). The conflict between these theories produces the urge — in this case, the sensation of hunger.

I explain these conflicts in more detail, with further examples of Drives, Intuitions, and Statements, in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEcR_0GbzRE

#1712 · Edwin de WitOP, 12 days ago

[E]very emotional sensation — including urges — arises from problems […]

If that’s true, a conflict is behind every positive emotion as well. What’s the conflict behind joy, say?

(If you’re wondering why I’m marking this a criticism even though it’s phrased as a question: it means that a satisfactory answer would address the criticism; such an answer should itself be marked a criticism.)

6 days ago · ‘The spirit of the Fun Criterion’
  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1722.

It's a fair point. I agree it's not a perfect word. I tried many labels and variations, but I ended up with Drives because in my view it contrasted well with Intuition:

Unlike Intuitions, Drives carry the sense of a deep urge whose underlying theory is largely unconscious. You’re aware of the feelings they produce as you say, but not of the reasoning behind them. For example, you might know you’re sexually attracted to someone or suddenly feel sad, yet have no idea why — then that’s a Drive.

If you do have some sense of why you’re feeling a certain way and can roughly express it in words, it’s an Intuition. If you can fully articulate it in words, it’s a Statement. Statements can also produce feelings. For example, if one of your core value is non‑coercion, you might feel angry when someone disciplines their child in an immoral way — here, the Statement (often paired with Intuitions or Drives) is producing the feeling of anger.

I agree the main shortcoming of Drive is that it’s often taken to mean innate or hardwired knowledge. I haven’t found a better alternative, so I make it clear when explaining the concept that Drives can also arise from habitualized knowledge. Deutsch (in this podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e2LWxaqQUQ) seems to also support this way of defining new terminology

If you want to say something new the terminology you use is going to be unsuited for it because the terminology is going to be adapted to previous ways of thinking um what you can do is just invent your own terminology that's a terrible idea because no one will understand what you're saying and secondly it is subject to the same problem that it will only represent accurately fairly accurately your thoughts at a particular time when you're addressing a new criticism it will no longer be suitable so I think what people usually do and what is done in physics and what's done in philosophy what Popper did is to use the nearest existing term and be very careful to explain that one means something new by it.

If you have alternate suggestions, I'm of course eager to hear them!

#1722 · Edwin de WitOP, 12 days ago

For example, if one of your core value is non‑coercion […]

Should be plural ‘values’

6 days ago · ‘The spirit of the Fun Criterion’
  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #1726.

This misses the point of the post before it. Knowledge starts as myths and contains myths. Reason makes it hard to vary, thus reasonable to take as true until the myths in that theory itself are corrected.

#1726 · Zelalem MekonnenOP, 8 days ago

This should be marked a criticism.

6 days ago · ‘Reason Not The Only Source of Knowledge’
  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #1726.

This misses the point of the post before it. Knowledge starts as myths and contains myths. Reason makes it hard to vary, thus reasonable to take as true until the myths in that theory itself are corrected.

#1726 · Zelalem MekonnenOP, 8 days ago

I pointed out a circularity in #1655. Instead of resolving the circularity, you posted another idea repeating the same circularity. That makes no sense.

Even if I was somehow mistaken about there being a circularity, repeating the same idea doesn’t correct that.

Please read the discussion ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ in its entirety before continuing here.

6 days ago · ‘Reason Not The Only Source of Knowledge’
  Zelalem Mekonnen commented on criticism #1646.

Criticism is a form of knowledge. How does reason have access to criticism if reason is not the source of knowledge?

#1646 · Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month ago

This misses the point of the post before it. Knowledge starts as myths and contains myths. Reason makes it hard to vary, thus reasonable to take as true until the myths in that theory itself are corrected.

8 days ago · ‘Reason Not The Only Source of Knowledge’
  Edwin de Wit addressed criticism #1705.

Well, if you have empirically found that your new labels have helped you explain these concepts, then I’d normally be inclined to agree with you. But then I saw this part:

These labels already have a meaning that is more commonly associated to sensations in the mind.

But you use your labels with new meanings they aren’t commonly associated with. Like calling sudden sadness a drive, as I point out in #1704. Nobody would call that a drive.

Is this maybe because you’re not a native speaker? I don’t mean to get personal here, I’m just trying to look for alternate explanations.

#1705 · Dennis Hackethal, 13 days ago

I’ve added a comment on #1704 to clarify my point. I don’t think my English is the issue here. If/where we disagree, it’s more likely due to a gap in mutual understanding or an error in the substance of my knowledge.

12 days ago · ‘The spirit of the Fun Criterion’
  Edwin de Wit commented on criticism #1688.

Deutch

Deutsch

#1688 · Dennis Hackethal, 25 days ago

Thanks fixed

12 days ago · ‘The spirit of the Fun Criterion’
  Edwin de Wit revised idea #1715.

fixed typo

 6 unchanged lines collapsed
I agree the main shortcoming of *Drive* is that it’s often taken to mean innate or hardwired knowledge. I haven’t found a better alternative, so I make it clear when explaining the concept that Drives can also arise from habitualized knowledge. DeutchDeutsch (in this podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e2LWxaqQUQ) seems to also support this way of defining new terminology
 4 unchanged lines collapsed
12 days ago · ‘The spirit of the Fun Criterion’
  Edwin de Wit commented on criticism #1701.

For example, if your core value is that non‑coercion […]

There’s a word missing. Presumably ‘of’.

#1701 · Dennis Hackethal, 13 days ago

Adjusted it

12 days ago · ‘The spirit of the Fun Criterion’
  Edwin de Wit revised idea #1709.

fixed typo

 4 unchanged lines collapsed
If you *do* have some sense of why you’re feeling a certain way and can roughly express it in words, it’s an **Intuition**. If you can fully articulate it in words, it’s a **Statement**. Statements can also produce feelings. For example, if one of your core value isthat non‑coercion, you might feel angry when someone disciplines their child in an immoral way — here, the Statement (often paired with Intuitions or Drives) is producing the feeling of anger.
 6 unchanged lines collapsed
12 days ago · ‘The spirit of the Fun Criterion’
  Edwin de Wit addressed criticism #1704.

A sudden feeling of sadness isn’t a drive. That makes no sense.

#1704 · Dennis Hackethal, 13 days ago

What I mean is this: if you feel sadness without having any conscious theory in mind—whether explicit or inexplicit—then the sadness must arise from a conflict or problem (in the Popperian sense) involving unconscious knowledge, i.e. a Drive.

I do not mean that the feeling of sadness is a Drive. Rather, I’m saying that when sadness appears without an accompanying theory to explain it, its source must be a Drive.

12 days ago · ‘The spirit of the Fun Criterion’
  Edwin de Wit commented on criticism #1699.

Statements are just that: statements. My dictionary app says a statement is (among other things) “a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing”.

Some written words on a page or recordings of a voice don’t by themselves produce feelings. Expressions don’t produce feelings. If they’re just sitting on a page, they’re not even inside a mind where they could produce feelings.

A poem might move you to tears but it’s not literally the written words that move you to tears. It’s some knowledge inside you that does.

#1699 · Dennis Hackethal, 13 days ago

I see — so the criticism was about my use of the label Statements for “explicit knowledge,” rather than about whether explicit knowledge can produce feelings (which I take it you agree it can).

I agree with these points; I was simply using Statement as my label for explicit knowledge.

Some written words on a page or recordings of a voice don’t by themselves produce feelings. Expressions don’t produce feelings. If they’re just sitting on a page, they’re not even inside a mind where they could produce feelings.
A poem might move you to tears but it’s not literally the written words that move you to tears. It’s some knowledge inside you that does.

12 days ago · ‘The spirit of the Fun Criterion’
  Edwin de Wit addressed criticism #1703.

An “urge” only arises when a Drive comes into conflict with something else

That’s not what an urge is. An urge is “a strong desire or impulse” according to my Dictionary app. A strong desire or impulse doesn’t imply a conflict.

#1703 · Dennis Hackethal, 13 days ago

I think it does imply a conflict. I think every emotional sensation — including urges — arises from problems in the Popperian sense: two or more incompatible theories in conflict.

For example, consider hunger. One theory (Drive A) is that we don’t want to be hungry, while another signals that we are hungry (from ephemeral sense data (which could itself be viewed as a Drive, though that’s not important here)). The conflict between these theories produces the urge — in this case, the sensation of hunger.

I explain these conflicts in more detail, with further examples of Drives, Intuitions, and Statements, in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEcR_0GbzRE

12 days ago · ‘The spirit of the Fun Criterion’
  Edwin de Wit commented on idea #1702.

Since you agree, you should update #1679 accordingly.

#1702 · Dennis Hackethal, 13 days ago

Done

12 days ago · ‘The spirit of the Fun Criterion’
  Edwin de Wit revised idea #1679.
It's a fair point. I agree it's not a perfect word. I tried many labels and variations, but I ended up with **Drives** because in my view it contrasted well with Intuition:

Unlike **Intuitions**, *Drives* carry the sense of a deep compulsionurge whose underlying theory is largely unconscious. You’re aware of the feelings they produce as you say, but not of the reasoning behind them. For example, you might know you’re sexually attracted to someone or suddenly feel sad, yet have no idea why — then that’s a Drive.
 8 unchanged lines collapsed
12 days ago · ‘The spirit of the Fun Criterion’
  Edwin de Wit commented on criticism #1698.

Why is this a block quote?

#1698 · Dennis Hackethal, 13 days ago

A typo, I think. Fixed now!

12 days ago · ‘The spirit of the Fun Criterion’