Benjamin Davies’s avatar

Benjamin Davies

@benjamin-davies·Member since October 2025

Activity

  Benjamin Davies updated discussion ‘Choosing a place to live’.

The ‘About’ section changed as follows:

I am approaching a point in my life where I will soon be able to freely choose where in the world I live (from a financial perspective). I want to discuss various criteria for criticising different places. I am currently a citizen of New Zealand and Britain.

I am approaching a point in my life where I will soon have the financial freedom to choose where in the world I live. I want to discuss various criteria for criticising different places. I am currently a citizen of New Zealand and Britain.

  Benjamin Davies updated discussion ‘Choosing a place to live’.

The ‘About’ section changed as follows:

I am progressing in my career to the point where I am approaching the level of financial freedom required to be free to choose where in the world to live. I want to discuss various criteria for criticising different places. I am currently a citizen of New Zealand and Britain.

I am approaching a point in my life where I will soon be able to freely choose where in the world I live (from a financial perspective). I want to discuss various criteria for criticising different places. I am currently a citizen of New Zealand and Britain.

  Benjamin Davies commented on idea #2318.

Using my true name here causes me to take more care in what I write. I’m not hiding behind an identity I can discard.

#2318·Benjamin DaviesOP, 20 days ago

This may make it harder for me to discuss sensitive topics (e.g. navigating personal relationships, health issues, etc.) since it may reveal things to people who know me personally, things that I may wish to keep to myself, that I would only discuss online behind a pseudonym.

  Benjamin Davies submitted idea #2318.

Using my true name here causes me to take more care in what I write. I’m not hiding behind an identity I can discard.

  Benjamin Davies submitted idea #2317.

People often say there are safety issues involved in using your true name online.

  Benjamin Davies started a discussion titled ‘Real names vs pseudonyms online’.

When signing up to Veritula, we are all asked to use our true first and last names. I would like to discuss using true names online, not only on Veritula but on other social media too. This is not something I have thought about much. I currently use pseudonyms everywhere except Instagram/FB and Veritula.

The discussion starts with idea #2316.

@dennis-hackethal Please share your reasoning for your request that Veritula users use their true names.

  Benjamin Davies commented on idea #2311.

Would it be possible / worth it to produce a competitor to Wikipedia based on Popperian epistemology?

Yes, sure.

The idea of having a Wikipedia equivalent that presents high quality competing articles detailing different alternative explanations for things (with some sort of versioning and methods of criticism) excites me greatly.

Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.

We ‘just’ need to get more users. As I wrote in #628, posting a breaking news story could work. If users submit ideas on events as they unfold and then criticize those ideas, visitors see what’s happening at a glance. It could be easier for them to know which ideas they can adopt than on conventional news channels or even Wikipedia, IMO.

There are also ‘timeless’ debates that have been going on for decades where Veritula can offer clarity. Like on the abortion debate. People shouldn’t have to keep debating that over and over when it’s a matter where objective truth can be found and then acted on.

I have thought of producing something like this myself, which was part of what drew me to Veritula.

I’m curious btw, how did you hear about Veritula?

#2311·Dennis HackethalOP, 21 days ago

I’m curious btw, how did you hear about Veritula?

I believe I came across it while exploring your blog. My ‘Popperian Wikipedia’ idea was particularly sharp in my mind in that moment, so I was very excited to see how you had set things up here. I think a tremendous amount of it is transferable.

  Benjamin Davies commented on idea #2311.

Would it be possible / worth it to produce a competitor to Wikipedia based on Popperian epistemology?

Yes, sure.

The idea of having a Wikipedia equivalent that presents high quality competing articles detailing different alternative explanations for things (with some sort of versioning and methods of criticism) excites me greatly.

Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.

We ‘just’ need to get more users. As I wrote in #628, posting a breaking news story could work. If users submit ideas on events as they unfold and then criticize those ideas, visitors see what’s happening at a glance. It could be easier for them to know which ideas they can adopt than on conventional news channels or even Wikipedia, IMO.

There are also ‘timeless’ debates that have been going on for decades where Veritula can offer clarity. Like on the abortion debate. People shouldn’t have to keep debating that over and over when it’s a matter where objective truth can be found and then acted on.

I have thought of producing something like this myself, which was part of what drew me to Veritula.

I’m curious btw, how did you hear about Veritula?

#2311·Dennis HackethalOP, 21 days ago

My vision is for an online encyclopedia that contains complete articles describing the totality of a perspective, with articles for alternate explanations readily available. I see many problems with this idea but I think it is worth exploring.

  Benjamin Davies criticized idea #2311.

Would it be possible / worth it to produce a competitor to Wikipedia based on Popperian epistemology?

Yes, sure.

The idea of having a Wikipedia equivalent that presents high quality competing articles detailing different alternative explanations for things (with some sort of versioning and methods of criticism) excites me greatly.

Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.

We ‘just’ need to get more users. As I wrote in #628, posting a breaking news story could work. If users submit ideas on events as they unfold and then criticize those ideas, visitors see what’s happening at a glance. It could be easier for them to know which ideas they can adopt than on conventional news channels or even Wikipedia, IMO.

There are also ‘timeless’ debates that have been going on for decades where Veritula can offer clarity. Like on the abortion debate. People shouldn’t have to keep debating that over and over when it’s a matter where objective truth can be found and then acted on.

I have thought of producing something like this myself, which was part of what drew me to Veritula.

I’m curious btw, how did you hear about Veritula?

#2311·Dennis HackethalOP, 21 days ago

Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.

Veritula emphasises making one point at a time for ease of criticism and discussion, which is useful in a forum but makes absorbing the totality of an idea a little more tedious compared to a quick glance at an encyclopedia article. (It is possible I have misunderstood some aspect of Veritula here.)

  Benjamin Davies criticized idea #2311.

Would it be possible / worth it to produce a competitor to Wikipedia based on Popperian epistemology?

Yes, sure.

The idea of having a Wikipedia equivalent that presents high quality competing articles detailing different alternative explanations for things (with some sort of versioning and methods of criticism) excites me greatly.

Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.

We ‘just’ need to get more users. As I wrote in #628, posting a breaking news story could work. If users submit ideas on events as they unfold and then criticize those ideas, visitors see what’s happening at a glance. It could be easier for them to know which ideas they can adopt than on conventional news channels or even Wikipedia, IMO.

There are also ‘timeless’ debates that have been going on for decades where Veritula can offer clarity. Like on the abortion debate. People shouldn’t have to keep debating that over and over when it’s a matter where objective truth can be found and then acted on.

I have thought of producing something like this myself, which was part of what drew me to Veritula.

I’m curious btw, how did you hear about Veritula?

#2311·Dennis HackethalOP, 21 days ago

Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.

One thing that Wikipedia articles are very good for is providing well-structured information on a given subject. Discussion threads are not so well structured (the order of information is not based on how high-level or foundational it is, like an encyclopedia entry would be, but rather on the nested chronology of whatever discussion happened to take place.)

  Benjamin Davies submitted idea #2305.

I started a discussion earlier, and what I wrote in the “about” section of the discussion was not written well. I would like to revise it. Is this possible? If not, is there an intention to make this possible eventually?

  Benjamin Davies commented on idea #628.

I agree that Veritula deserves to scale to something huge.

Looking through the history of Wikipedia, I see that its core concept is that of “compiling the world's knowledge in a single location […]”. To be clear, I think the core concept of Veritula is to be a programmatic implementation of Popper’s rational discussion methodology; it then becomes a dictionary for ideas as a result. It’s also less about listing facts and more about listing ideas and their logical relationship (though criticisms do provide built-in fact-checking mechanisms). That said, with enough users, Veritula could become a place with a lot of knowledge.

The linked site traces some of the success of Wikipedia to volunteers: “The use of volunteers was integral in making and maintaining Wikipedia.” So early adopters such as yourself are crucial.

In addition, 9/11 apparently played a role in making Wikipedia famous:

The September 11 attacks spurred the appearance of breaking news stories on the homepage, as well as information boxes linking related articles. At the time, approximately 100 articles related to 9/11 had been created. After the September 11 attacks, a link to the Wikipedia article on the attacks appeared on Yahoo!'s home page, resulting in a spike in traffic.

Veritula could be a place where people break news stories and others can quickly fact-check and improve upon reports by revising them. An urgent story would draw a lot of users to the site, too.

Something like Wikipedia’s arbitration process could be interesting, too.

Something similar to Wikipedia’s page-protection feature to combat “edit warring” and “prevent vandalism” could address the issue of people posting criticisms in rapid succession to protect their pet ideas.

Your suggestion to look to Wikipedia for inspiration is spot on. Thanks.

#628·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year ago

Would it be possible / worth it to produce a competitor to Wikipedia based on Popperian epistemology? Larry Sanger (a founder of Wikipedia) has said that he now thinks Wikipedia should have competing articles on the same topic to allow for the fact that people disagree.

The idea of having a Wikipedia equivalent that presents high quality competing articles detailing different alternative explanations for things (with some sort of versioning and methods of criticism) excites me greatly.

I have thought of producing something like this myself, which was part of what drew me to Veritula.

  Benjamin Davies commented on idea #2300.

Are you thinking of sun exposure to get enough vitamin D?

To be sure, I’m not a doctor, but because I have very fair skin, every dermatologist I’ve ever talked to has advised me to avoid the sun and instead take vitamin D supplements.

#2300·Dennis Hackethal, 21 days ago

Please see #2298 for a link to an article outlining various other reasons for getting sunlight. Vitamin D is not the only reason to get sunlight (or some artificial equivalent).

  Benjamin Davies commented on idea #2297.

You may want to check out Instagram account jacbfoods. He used to be opposed to seed oils, but when he got his master’s degree in dietetics, he changed his mind.

#2297·Dennis Hackethal, 21 days ago

Thank you for sharing. Skimming his content, I’m not finding any criticisms of the biological explanations I currently hold that reject polyunsaturated fats. I will dig deeper later on.

I haven’t yet found good criticisms of Ray Peat’s ideas regarding unsaturated fats, so those are the ideas I am currently living by.

  Benjamin Davies revised idea #2292.

Corrected error and added link

I live in places that are mostly sunny, most of the time. This is for health reasons.

I want to live in places that are mostly sunny, most of the time. This is for health reasons.

  Benjamin Davies revised idea #2289.

Improved clarity

I could have multiple homes around the world, which I can move between throughout the year. This way I can make the most of geographical and seasonal advantages of different places.

I could have multiple homes around the world that I move between throughout the year. This way I can make the most of geographical and seasonal advantages of different places.

  Benjamin Davies submitted idea #2294.

Ideally I would live at some altitude, for health reasons.

  Benjamin Davies submitted idea #2293.

I want to live somewhere with a more libertarian culture than average. I want to live somewhere where property rights are respected more than average, and people are left alone by the government more than average.

  Benjamin Davies submitted idea #2292.

I live in places that are mostly sunny, most of the time. This is for health reasons.

  Benjamin Davies submitted idea #2291.

I want access to good quality food, particularly good quality meat, dairy, and fruit. Ideally the place I live has a growing culture of eating well (for example, in Austin, many restaurants are now making it a point not to use any seed oils in their cooking.)

  Benjamin Davies submitted idea #2290.

I want to live close to thriving cities (say, no more than 60 minutes away on an average day).

  Benjamin Davies submitted idea #2289.

I could have multiple homes around the world, which I can move between throughout the year. This way I can make the most of geographical and seasonal advantages of different places.

  Benjamin Davies started a discussion titled ‘Choosing a place to live’.

I am progressing in my career to the point where I am approaching the level of financial freedom required to be free to choose where in the world to live. I want to discuss various criteria for criticising different places. I am currently a citizen of New Zealand and Britain.

The discussion starts with idea #2288.

I want superior water quality for drinking, bathing, etc.

This means I need to live somewhere sufficiently advanced to be able to provide and service high quality reverse-osmosis water filters. Otherwise I would need to be somewhere that I can directly access spring water, which I think is much more difficult.

  Benjamin Davies revised idea #2285.

Tagged Dennis.

Will the criterion for “battle tested” change as the site grows? If the purpose of this feature is to enable users to quickly see the best ideas on the site, I would imagine the number of addressed criticisms needed to count as “battle tested” would need to grow with the site.

Will the criterion for “battle tested” change as the site grows? If the purpose of this feature is to enable users to quickly see the best ideas on the site, I would imagine the number of addressed criticisms needed to count as “battle tested” would need to grow with the site. @dennis-hackethal

  Benjamin Davies commented on idea #1948.

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 pending 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.

#1948·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month ago

Will the criterion for “battle tested” change as the site grows? If the purpose of this feature is to enable users to quickly see the best ideas on the site, I would imagine the number of addressed criticisms needed to count as “battle tested” would need to grow with the site.