Activity
#5484·Benjamin Davies, 2 days agoYou say users who have been told about Veritula’s standard can be held to it. If Veritula becomes widely used, most new users will not initially be Popperians. They may understand “known to be false,” “objectively wrong,” and “rationally adoptable” in their ordinary senses rather than Veritula’s technical, fallibilist senses.
What must someone have been told and understood before they count as someone who “should know better”? Should the rule require clear notice about how Veritula uses these terms, and a chance to understand and criticise that epistemology, before someone’s off-platform statements can count as an offence?
What must someone have been told and understood before they count as someone who “should know better”?
I don’t know if this can be fully defined ahead of time. Someone new to V would naturally be given more leeway. Over time, if they need to be told again and again but make no or little progress, and if they conveniently keep forgetting how V works to save their pet ideas, then it wouldn’t be unreasonable for a mod to conclude they’re not all that interested in rationality. I don’t know if the specific circumstances under which that might happen can be predicted.
But as a hypothetical example: a member of V is pointed repeatedly to the state of the discussion around HTV, say. Then they go on X to talk about how great HTV is. When asked about this, they ‘forgot’ HTV had pending criticisms. They promise to look into it. But they ‘forget’ again and the same behavior repeats. That’s basically lying at that point.