Activity Feed
#2856·Benjamin Davies, 13 days agoSince discussions themselves are criticisable, is there anything wrong with just titling a discussion 'Karl Popper' and then putting the equivalent of an encyclopedia article in the about section? That is functionally identical to what an article would be, but I am interested if you would prefer discussions not be used that way.
… is there anything wrong with just titling a discussion 'Karl Popper' and then putting the equivalent of an encyclopedia article in the about section?
About sections are for context or background info, not content.
#2856·Benjamin Davies, 13 days agoSince discussions themselves are criticisable, is there anything wrong with just titling a discussion 'Karl Popper' and then putting the equivalent of an encyclopedia article in the about section? That is functionally identical to what an article would be, but I am interested if you would prefer discussions not be used that way.
… is there anything wrong with just titling a discussion 'Karl Popper' and then putting the equivalent of an encyclopedia article in the about section?
Yes. About sections can’t be part of criticism chains.
#2857·Benjamin Davies, 13 days agoNote: Discussions with outstanding top-level criticisms do not render a 'criticised' pill like ideas with outstanding criticisms do.
They’re not supposed to, see #2871.
#2856·Benjamin Davies, 13 days agoSince discussions themselves are criticisable, is there anything wrong with just titling a discussion 'Karl Popper' and then putting the equivalent of an encyclopedia article in the about section? That is functionally identical to what an article would be, but I am interested if you would prefer discussions not be used that way.
Since discussions themselves are criticisable…
They’re not, see #2871.
#2855·Benjamin Davies, 13 days agoI just realised that it is possible to publish a top-level idea as a 'criticism' in a discussion, in the way I have advocated an article would be criticisable. I am struggling to understand what it means to criticise a discussion. @dennis-hackethal may you please explain this?
I am struggling to understand what it means to criticise a discussion.
Top-level criticisms don’t criticize the discussion as a whole. They’re just criticisms of something. Anything. It depends on context.
For example, top-level criticisms in the Veritula – Meta discussion are often bug reports. So they’re criticisms of Veritula.
#2829·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 13 days agoThe Open Society
This is the political philosophy of Critical Rationalism, detailed by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies. An open society is one in which each individual is largely enabled to make their own personal decisions, as opposed to a tribal or collectivist society. It replaces the justificationist political question, "Who should rule?", with the fallibilist question: "How can we structure our institutions so that we can remove bad rulers and bad policies without violence?". In this view, democracy is not "rule by the people" (an essentialist definition) but is valued as the only known institutional mechanism for error-correction and leadership change without bloodshed.
their own personal
Double (triple?) tautology
#2829·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 13 days agoThe Open Society
This is the political philosophy of Critical Rationalism, detailed by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies. An open society is one in which each individual is largely enabled to make their own personal decisions, as opposed to a tribal or collectivist society. It replaces the justificationist political question, "Who should rule?", with the fallibilist question: "How can we structure our institutions so that we can remove bad rulers and bad policies without violence?". In this view, democracy is not "rule by the people" (an essentialist definition) but is valued as the only known institutional mechanism for error-correction and leadership change without bloodshed.
is largely enabled to
can
#2829·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 13 days agoThe Open Society
This is the political philosophy of Critical Rationalism, detailed by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies. An open society is one in which each individual is largely enabled to make their own personal decisions, as opposed to a tribal or collectivist society. It replaces the justificationist political question, "Who should rule?", with the fallibilist question: "How can we structure our institutions so that we can remove bad rulers and bad policies without violence?". In this view, democracy is not "rule by the people" (an essentialist definition) but is valued as the only known institutional mechanism for error-correction and leadership change without bloodshed.
each individual
I see several opportunities for simplification of language in this idea. The quote above is one of them. You could instead say ‘everyone’ or ‘people’.
Doesn’t sound as serious/legitimate as I’d like in this context.
#2829·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 13 days agoThe Open Society
This is the political philosophy of Critical Rationalism, detailed by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies. An open society is one in which each individual is largely enabled to make their own personal decisions, as opposed to a tribal or collectivist society. It replaces the justificationist political question, "Who should rule?", with the fallibilist question: "How can we structure our institutions so that we can remove bad rulers and bad policies without violence?". In this view, democracy is not "rule by the people" (an essentialist definition) but is valued as the only known institutional mechanism for error-correction and leadership change without bloodshed.
The Open Society
This is the political philosophy …
I haven’t read that book but it seems weird to call a society a philosophy. You sure that’s what Popper means?
#2816·Benjamin Davies revised 13 days agoThe user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.
This is how relating discussions works currently. For instance, if I start a discussion on Bitcoin, I might want to connect it to the existing discussion on Zcash. At present, the only way to achieve this is by adding a link to the Zcash discussion within my new Bitcoin discussion.
I suspect you would agree with me that this approach to how discussions interact isn’t really an issue. I also think it wouldn’t be an issue for independently published ideas, for the same reasons.
Note: This has lead me to the idea that links within Veritula could be bidirectional. Each idea could have an option to display all other ideas that refer to it. I will submit this as a top-level idea in this thread.
lead
led
The user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.
Posting a sibling on an existing discussion is far easier.
The user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.
Posting a sibling on an existing discussion is far easier.
#2816·Benjamin Davies revised 13 days agoThe user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.
This is how relating discussions works currently. For instance, if I start a discussion on Bitcoin, I might want to connect it to the existing discussion on Zcash. At present, the only way to achieve this is by adding a link to the Zcash discussion within my new Bitcoin discussion.
I suspect you would agree with me that this approach to how discussions interact isn’t really an issue. I also think it wouldn’t be an issue for independently published ideas, for the same reasons.
Note: This has lead me to the idea that links within Veritula could be bidirectional. Each idea could have an option to display all other ideas that refer to it. I will submit this as a top-level idea in this thread.
The user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.
Posting a sibling on an existing discussion is far easier.
You may want to hit the bell icon for each discussion and at the top of the page listing all discussions. Then you’ll be notified of every activity on existing discussions, and of new discussions.
That’s what notifications are for. You’d want to hit the bell icon for each discussion and at the top of the page listing all discussions. Then you’ll be notified of every activity on existing discussions, and of new discussions. The notification page keeps track of read vs unread notifications.
#2853·Benjamin Davies, 13 days agoI noticed that the idea count of some discussions in the Discussions page seem to be inaccurate. In the Keeping Tidy discussion, I count 13 ideas, including revisions, while the listing for it on Discussions says it contains 17.
You forgot to count comments on older versions of ideas.
#2829·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 13 days agoThe Open Society
This is the political philosophy of Critical Rationalism, detailed by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies. An open society is one in which each individual is largely enabled to make their own personal decisions, as opposed to a tribal or collectivist society. It replaces the justificationist political question, "Who should rule?", with the fallibilist question: "How can we structure our institutions so that we can remove bad rulers and bad policies without violence?". In this view, democracy is not "rule by the people" (an essentialist definition) but is valued as the only known institutional mechanism for error-correction and leadership change without bloodshed.
Broken links
#2823·Benjamin DaviesOP, 13 days agoPolitical Holism
Synonymous with large-scale social engineering, this is the political program that follows from Historicism. It is the attempt to remodel an entire society from a central blueprint, based on a historicist prophecy of an "ideal" state. Popper argued this program is both violent and irrational. It is violent because it requires the suppression of all dissent to enact the central plan, and it is irrational because when an entire system is changed at once, it becomes impossible to trace the consequences of any single action, making it impossible to learn from mistakes.
Broken link
#2856·Benjamin Davies, 13 days agoSince discussions themselves are criticisable, is there anything wrong with just titling a discussion 'Karl Popper' and then putting the equivalent of an encyclopedia article in the about section? That is functionally identical to what an article would be, but I am interested if you would prefer discussions not be used that way.
Note: Discussions with outstanding top-level criticisms do not render a 'criticised' pill like ideas with outstanding criticisms do.
#2808·Dennis HackethalOP, 14 days agoIf I wanted to keep and share information on Karl Popper, it would be a lot more intuitive to produce an article on him in encyclopedia style—where I can present information in a hierarchy, rather than creating a discussion and then making each detail about him a top-level idea, which is more chaotic.
You already don’t have to do divvy it up like that. Nothing is stopping you from creating a discussion called ‘Karl Popper’ and then posting a single, long-form, top-level idea where you present information in a hierarchy.
Since discussions themselves are criticisable, is there anything wrong with just titling a discussion 'Karl Popper' and then putting the equivalent of an encyclopedia article in the about section? That is functionally identical to what an article would be, but I am interested if you would prefer discussions not be used that way.
#2775·Benjamin Davies, 15 days agoIf Veritula did implement articles, the first thing I’d want is the ability to criticize them; to submit deeply nested counter-criticisms; and to render a label showing how many pending criticisms an article has, calculated based on criticism chains.
I agree, and I think here you have inadvertently pointed at a key difference between discussions and articles. In terms of implementation, articles would be a near clone of discussions, except that the articles themselves can be criticised by users, including all the functionality that articles being criticisable may one day come with, like entire articles going dormant if they don’t answer criticisms within a certain period.
A couple of examples: If I wanted to keep and share information on Karl Popper, it would be a lot more intuitive to produce an article on him in encyclopedia style—where I can present information in a hierarchy, rather than creating a discussion and then making each detail about him a top-level idea, which is more chaotic. The same would be true if I wanted to make articles on CR terms—this doesn’t seem very natural to do in a Veritula discussion, but would be very natural in a series of Veritula articles, one for each term.
It also favours this articles idea that implementing it would be fairly straightforward, due to how much could be carried over from the discussions implementation. It makes it low cost to try.
I just realised that it is possible to publish a top-level idea as a 'criticism' in a discussion, in the way I have advocated an article would be criticisable. I am struggling to understand what it means to criticise a discussion. @dennis-hackethal may you please explain this?
#2746·Benjamin Davies, 16 days agoIt would be a waste of time to add features that don’t scale well.
This would work fine for discussion-specific or idea-specific activity feeds, even at scale.
I noticed that the idea count of some discussions in the Discussions page seem to be inaccurate. In the Keeping Tidy discussion, I count 13 ideas, including revisions, while the listing for it on Discussions says it contains 17.
improved clarity
Interview published today, with one of the founders of Wikipedia:
https://youtu.be/8-0vUZ0hTK4?si=Szd_nS4UvCy9Mifi
I agree with him on many of the problems he identifies, but he doesn’t come at it from a Popperian angle like I do. He argues, like I do, that Wikipedia should allow multiple competing articles on each topic.
Interview published today, with one of the founders of Wikipedia:
https://youtu.be/8-0vUZ0hTK4?si=Szd_nS4UvCy9Mifi
He argues, like I do, that Wikipedia should allow multiple competing articles on each topic.
I partly agree with him on other problems he identifies, but unfortunately he doesn’t come at it from a Popperian angle.
#2753·Benjamin Davies revised 16 days agoIdea: Veritula Articles
Currently, Veritula is a discussion website. I believe it could one day do what Wikipedia and Grokipedia do, but better.
A step towards that would be enabling users to produce ‘articles’ or something similar.
An ‘Articles’ tab would be distinct from the ‘Discussions’ tab, featuring explanatory documents similar to encyclopedia entries, and perhaps also blogpost-like content.
Articles focus on distilling the good ideas created/discovered in the discussions that occur on Veritula.
Interview published today, with one of the founders of Wikipedia:
https://youtu.be/8-0vUZ0hTK4?si=Szd_nS4UvCy9Mifi
I agree with him on many of the problems he identifies, but he doesn’t come at it from a Popperian angle like I do. He argues, like I do, that Wikipedia should allow multiple competing articles on each topic.
fixed typo
This leads me to believe that my untidiness may have to do with physiological lethargy, and that increasing availability of biological energy may contribute to a solution it.
This leads me to believe that my untidiness may have to do with physiological lethargy, and that increasing availability of biological energy may contribute to a solution to it.