Activity feed
If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own. Also, avoid duplicatecriticism.ideas.
#1849·Zelalem Mekonnen, 2 days agoWhat of for "Supersedes previous version?" box? Would that be selected, since the new version would supersede the current version.
Checking that box is useful when you want a revision to override the original.
If you check it, Veritula automatically posts a criticism of the original idea on your behalf. This way, if the original idea is a criticism, it gets ‘neutralized’, which is usually what you want when you revise a criticism.
Consider what would happen if you didn’t neutralize an old criticism: then the parent idea would show two pending criticisms.
#1833 (your idea) isn’t a criticism. Even if it were, it’s already been criticized (#1848). So checking the box isn’t strictly necessary. But feel free to check it and see what happens.
#1848·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 days agoDecent start with some room for improvement. Let’s learn Veritula by doing. I’ll submit criticisms of your idea one by one and you can practice Veritula by addressing them. Here’s the first one:
Also, avoid duplicate criticism.
Yes, but we should avoid duplicate ideas in general.
Try revising #1833 to address this criticism. Click ‘Revise’, change ‘avoid duplicate criticism’ to ‘avoid duplicate ideas’, deselect this criticism underneath the form, then hit submit.
Make sure that at each step you understand why you’re performing that step. Ask first if you don’t.
What of for "Supersedes previous version?" box? Would that be selected, since the new version would supersede the current version.
#1833·Zelalem Mekonnen, 4 days agoIf I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own. Also, avoid duplicate criticism.
Decent start with some room for improvement. Let’s learn Veritula by doing. I’ll submit criticisms of your idea one by one and you can practice Veritula by addressing them. Here’s the first one:
Also, avoid duplicate criticism.
Yes, but we should avoid duplicate ideas in general.
Try revising #1833 to address this criticism. Click ‘Revise’, change ‘avoid duplicate criticism’ to ‘avoid duplicate ideas’, deselect this criticism underneath the form, then hit submit.
Make sure that at each step you understand why you’re performing that step. Ask first if you don’t.
#1845·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days agoThere should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G /|\ P1 P2 P3 \|/ IThis feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
For parent ideas, cycle only through revisions that lead to the target idea. Communicate accordingly in the UI. For the target idea, its children, and any of its siblings’ children, cycle through all revisions.
Every idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread. This could just be ideas#show. That page should also scroll the target idea into view in case its preceded by too much context that would otherwise push it below the viewport.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
Implemented as of 632c0d7.
14 unchanged lines collapsedEvery idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread. This could just beideas#show.↵ ↵ Thisideas#show. That page should also scroll the target idea into view in case its preceded by too much context that would otherwise push it below the viewport.↵ ↵ This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
#1841·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days agoThere should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G /|\ P1 P2 P3 \|/ IThis feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
For parent ideas, cycle only through revisions that lead to the target idea. Communicate accordingly in the UI. For the target idea, its children, and any of its siblings’ children, cycle through all revisions.
Every idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread. This could just be ideas#show.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
The target idea should be scrolled into view. Otherwise, it might not always be visible, which could cause confusion. See eg #1811, which is preceded by a long idea and thus not visible on page load at the time of writing.
#1841·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days agoThere should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G /|\ P1 P2 P3 \|/ IThis feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
For parent ideas, cycle only through revisions that lead to the target idea. Communicate accordingly in the UI. For the target idea, its children, and any of its siblings’ children, cycle through all revisions.
Every idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread. This could just be ideas#show.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
Implemented as of 55d02a7.
10 unchanged lines collapsedThis feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelatedideas.↵ ↵ Cyclingideas.↵ ↵ For parent ideas, cycle only through revisionson the parent level might hide the idea butthat lead to the target idea. Communicate accordingly initself isn’t a big deal:theuser can just refreshUI. For thepage anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.↵ ↵ Every non-top-leveltarget idea, its children, and any of its siblings’ children, cycle through all revisions.↵ ↵ Every idea should have a link to a separate page with the single commentthread.↵ ↵ Thisthread. This could just be ideas#show.↵ ↵ This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
#1837·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoThere should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G /|\ P1 P2 P3 \|/ IThis feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.
Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.
Might as well go with top-level ideas, too. That way, when there are other top-level ideas, they get filtered out. Good for zeroing in.
#1837·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoThere should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G /|\ P1 P2 P3 \|/ IThis feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.
Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.
During testing, I realized this behavior is more confusing than I had initially thought.
7 unchanged lines collapsedI↵ ```↵ ↵ CyclingI↵ ```↵ ↵ This feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.↵ ↵ Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.4 unchanged lines collapsed
There should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G
/|\
P1 P2 P3
\|/
I
Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.
Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
#1646·Dennis Hackethal, about 2 months agoCriticism is a form of knowledge. How does reason have access to criticism if reason is not the source of knowledge?
Could you expand more on what you mean by the above question?
Ayn Rand claims that "[t]he virtue of *Rationality* means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge [...]." This is wrong, mainly because reason can only be used as a method of choosing between knowledge/ideas, not asathe only source of knowledge.
If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own. Also, avoid duplicate criticism.
#1819·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 5 days agoThis has to take time into context. At one point, a belief in god was all that we had. We didn't have hard to vary explanations. As such, a person might have a belief in god as the only worldview currently. So it isn't irrational for that person, or people back in the days, to believe in god.
Irrationality may be all people had back in the day but that doesn’t make it rational.
This counter-criticism isn’t an invitation to continue this discussion at this point. See #1821.
#1818·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 5 days agoDreams can be a source of knowledge. But dreams aren't always reasonable. Sometimes, dreams are lies.
In that statement, I am looking at reason as a mode of criticism. You might get ideas and potentially knowledge from all sources and reason tests weather they are right or not.
And if I understand you right, what you're saying is if an idea isn't from 'reason' than how can we criticize it using reason. But we can and do all the time. Religion is irrational, but we criticize it and take what is good from it and discard the rest.
See #1821.
#1820·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 5 days agoSay someone said "I had a dream that {insert something true}" or "god told me that {insert something true}," what is the source of knowledge here?
That doesn’t belong here because you didn’t actually comment on my thoughts re circularity (I’m not requesting to do so now). You either did not read ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ or you did not understand it. You need to post ideas in the appropriate place. Discussions on Veritula shouldn’t be treated like linear chats.
Don’t post another idea in this discussion (the one titled ‘Reason Not The Only Source of Knowledge’) until you understand how Veritula works. If you think you understand how it works, post a summary of your understanding as a new top-level idea using the form located at the bottom of ‘How Does Veritula Work?’. I can then criticize your summary to help improve your understanding.
You can also study Edwin’s activity for examples of how to do Veritula well. He’s fairly new to it but learned it quickly.
Don’t let this discourage you. Veritula has a learning curve. It takes some upfront investment but it’s worth it.
#1727·Dennis Hackethal, 25 days agoI 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.
Say someone said "I had a dream that {insert something true}" or "god told me that {insert something true}," what is the source of knowledge here?
#1623·Dennis Hackethal, about 2 months agoIf I get her right, one could in principle hold a rational belief which is false —a belief in god, say— so long as this belief stems from a sincere effort to explain the world and so long as the believer is ready to jettison his belief if he were to think of some reason why it cannot be true.
A belief in god is a form of mysticism. Rand writes that rationality “means the rejection of any form of mysticism […].” So a belief in god is not just false, it’s irrational. It’s also implausible that someone could hold on to as blatantly false an idea as the existence of god without some refusal to look into the matter critically.
This has to take time into context. At one point, a belief in god was all that we had. We didn't have hard to vary explanations. As such, a person might have a belief in god as the only worldview currently. So it isn't irrational for that person, or people back in the days, to believe in god.
#1727·Dennis Hackethal, 25 days agoI 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.
Dreams can be a source of knowledge. But dreams aren't always reasonable. Sometimes, dreams are lies.
In that statement, I am looking at reason as a mode of criticism. You might get ideas and potentially knowledge from all sources and reason tests weather they are right or not.
And if I understand you right, what you're saying is if an idea isn't from 'reason' than how can we criticize it using reason. But we can and do all the time. Religion is irrational, but we criticize it and take what is good from it and discard the rest.
Use title case to be consistent with other top-level ideas in this discussion
## Whatdoes “battle tested” mean?↵ ↵ OneDoes “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.10 unchanged lines collapsed
Veritula## Recursive Epistemology↵ ↵ 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.16 unchanged lines collapsed
Make small improvements throughout
14 unchanged lines collapsedSince it has no criticisms,it`I` is considered *unproblematic*. It is rational to adopt it, tentatively consider it true, and act in accordance with it. Conversely, it would generally be *irrational* to rejectit. Next,it, consider it false, or act counter to it.↵ ↵ Next, someone submits a criticism `C1`:7 unchanged lines collapsedThe idea `I` is now considered *problematic*for asso long as criticism `C1` is not addressed. How do you address it? You can *revise* `I` so that `C1` doesn’t apply anymore, which restores the previous state with just the standalone`I`.`I` (now called `I2` to indicate the revision):↵ ↵ ```↵ Revise↵ I ------------> I2↵ |↵ C1↵ ```↵ ↵ To track changes, Veritula offers beautiful diffing and *version control forideas*. Alternatively,ideas.*↵ ↵ If you cannot think of a way to revise `I`, you can *counter-criticize* `C1`, thereby neutralizing it:9 unchanged lines collapsedNow, `I` is considered unproblematic again, since `C1` is problematic and thus can’t be a decisive criticismanymore.↵ ↵ Sinceanymore.↵ ↵ If you can think of neither a revision of `I` nor counter-criticism to `C1`, your only option is to accept that `I` has been (tentatively) defeated. You should therefore abandon it, which means: stop acting in accordance with it, considering it to be true, etc.↵ ↵ Since there can be many criticisms (which are also just ideas) and deeply nested counter-criticisms, the result is a tree structure. For example,itas a discussion progresses, its tree might look like this:15 unchanged lines collapsedBecause decision-making is a special case of,orie follows the same logic as, truth-seeking, such trees can be used for decision-making, too. When you’re planning your nextmove,move but can’t decide on a city, say, Veritula helps you criticize your ideas and make a decision. Again, it’s rational togoact in accordance withthe ideaideas thathashave no outstanding criticisms. All ideas, including criticisms, should be formulated as concisely aspossible.↵ ↵ Separatepossible, and separate ideas should be submitted separately, even if they’re related. Otherwise, you run the risk of receiving ‘bulk’ criticisms, where a single criticism seems to apply to more content than it actually does.3 unchanged lines collapsedThe more you discuss a given topic, the deeper and wider the tree grows. Some criticismsdocan apply to multiple ideas in the tree, but that needs to be madeexplicit.↵ ↵ Ideasexplicit by submitting them repeatedly.↵ ↵ Ideas that are neither criticisms nor top-level conjectures – eg follow-up questions or neutral comments – are considered *ancillary ideas*. Unlike criticisms, they do not invert their respective parent’s truth status. They are neutral. One of the main benefits of Veritula is that the truth status of any idea in a discussion can be seen at a glance. If you are new to a much-discussed topic, the rational course of action is to adopt the displayed truth status of the ideas involved: if they are marked problematic, reject them; if they are not, adoptthem.↵ ↵ **Veritulathem.↵ ↵ **Therefore, Veritula acts as a *dictionary for ideas*.**3 unchanged lines collapsedVeritula solves this problem: it makes discussion trees explicit so you don’t have to remember each idea and its relation to other ideas. Veritula therefore also enables you to hold irrational people accountable: if an idea has outstanding criticisms, the rational approach is to either abandon it or to save it by revising it or addressingthem.↵ ↵ Manythe outstanding criticisms.↵ ↵ Many people don’t like to concede an argument. But with Veritula, no concessions are necessary. The site just shows you who’s right. **Using Veritula, we may discover a bit of truth.**