Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024
Activity
Changing the query on the search page moves the cursor to the start of the query input. It should move to the end or, ideally, keep its position.
On the search page, there should be a button to clear the query input.
Feature idea: a page that shows you a random idea of yours that has pending criticisms and then helps you address them all.
#420·Dennis HackethalOP revised over 1 year agoNow that there are user profiles (#408), each profile can have a tab for unproblematic ideas. Among all the ideas a user has submitted, those are the ones he can rationally hold. And another tab for problematic ideas, ie ideas he has submitted that he cannot rationally hold.
Then people could occasionally check the second tab for ideas they think they can rationally hold but actually can’t. And then they can work on addressing criticisms. A kind of ‘mental housekeeping’ to ensure they never accidentally hold on to problematic ideas.
#2601·Dennis HackethalOP, 21 days agoWould be nice highlighting strings matching the query in search results.
Done as of f2531a2.
#2620·Zelalem MekonnenOP revised 21 days agoFallibilism is the view that there is no criterion to say with certainty what’s true and what’s false. As a result, we inevitably make mistakes and all of our knowledge is tentatively true. Nothing is obvious but depends on what one understands about reality. It also means that no knowledge is beyond revision, even if it asserts itself to be so. This means that we can't be certain about anything, because we don't have a criterion of truth. Knowledge grows by addressing problems in our knowledge. We solve problems by guessing solutions and testing them. This also means we should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the things and ideas that correct errors and thereby create knowledge. Some of those ideas are freedom, privacy, and free markets. We are also never the passive recipients of our knowledge; we are the creators.
This view is mainly influenced by Popper, and errors are my own.
… all of our knowledge is tentatively true.
This is still false, see #2603. You moved it from one place to another but I don’t see how that helped.
I didn’t want to just write what you have suggested, parroting isn’t understanding. Writing it in my own words helps the growth of both my understanding and writing. test edit
I didn’t want to just write what you have suggested, parroting isn’t understanding. Writing it in my own words helps the growth of both my understanding and writing.
I didn’t just want to write what you have suggested, as parroting isn’t understanding. Writing it in my own words helps the growth of both my understanding and writing.
I didn’t just want to write what you have suggested, as parroting isn’t understanding. Writing it in my own words helps the growth of both my understanding and writing. test edit
You didn’t write my suggestions in your own words. You ignored them and instead wrote something else.
But you didn’t write my suggestions in your own words. You ignored them and instead wrote something else.
#2604·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 21 days agoI didn’t just want to write what you have suggested, as parroting isn’t understanding. Writing it in my own words helps the growth of both my understanding and writing.
You didn’t write my suggestions in your own words. You ignored them and instead wrote something else.
#2602·Zelalem MekonnenOP revised 21 days agoFallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge is tentatively true, and nothing is obvious but depends on what one understands about reality. It also means that no knowledge is beyond revision, even if it asserts itself to be so. This means that we can't be certain about anything, because we don't have a criterion of truth. Knowledge grows by addressing problems in our knowledge. We solve problems by guessing solutions and testing them. This also means we should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the things and ideas that correct errors and thereby create knowledge. Some of those ideas are freedom, privacy, and free markets. We are also never the passive recipients of our knowledge; we are the creators.
This view is mainly influenced by Popper, and errors are my own.
Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge is tentatively true…
That isn’t true either.
I had already suggested replacements for the first sentence in both #2374 and #2589. At the time of writing, those ideas have no pending criticisms. You could have safely gone with either one.
Instead, you wrote something different for no apparent reason and introduced a new error in the process.
What are you doing man, come on
Would be nice highlighting strings matching the query in search results.
As of 2d3d38f, system-generated ideas are excluded from search results. They can be included again by checking a new checkmark in the form.
Automatically generated ideas are polluting the search page.
#2593·Zelalem MekonnenOP revised 21 days agoIf you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, then there is no difference between what I said and what you said. Because you knew a certain part of your knowledge was true, but it turned out not to be after further inquiry.
Now you’re using the word ‘certain’ with two different meanings, which is confusing. You could replace the second instance, “a certain”, with ‘some’ or just ‘a’.
Still, I don’t see why you’d use quotation marks for that. They don’t seem to be scare quotes, and they’re not a literal quote either.
I meant to refer to anything that you know to be true.
I meant to refer to anything that you know to be true.
#2586·Dennis Hackethal revised 21 days agoTo rephrase what you said, you can tell fallibly that some knowledge is true, and what I said was "[i]t may solve a problem, but that doesn't guarantee that it’s true."
#2586·Dennis Hackethal revised 21 days agoTo rephrase what you said, you can tell fallibly that some knowledge is true, and what I said was "[i]t may solve a problem, but that doesn't guarantee that it’s true."
In that case, I would agree with the second part of #2544 – just because something solves a problem doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed to be true, yes – but the first part is still wrong, IMO: “So there is no way to tell the truth of our knowledge.” There is, just not infallibly.
It certainly (pun intended) does not follow that all our knowledge contains errors, as you originally wrote.
To rephrase what you said, you can tell fallibly that some knowledge is true, and what I said was "[i]t may solve a problem, but that doesn't guarantee that it’s true."
To rephrase what you said, you can tell fallibly that some knowledge is true, and what I said was "[i]t may solve a problem, but that doesn't guarantee that it’s true."
#2564·Benjamin Davies, 23 days agoThank you for sharing this. I missed this in my read of BoI, and I agree now that Deutsch is wrong on this point.
Separate from Deutsch and going forward with our own epistemological practices, I think it would be appropriate for us to use terms like ‘good’ and ‘hard to vary’ in the sense of ‘not bad’ and ‘not easy to vary’. This eliminates the problem of gradation and positive argument, while preserving a shared and otherwise useful set of terminology.
… us[ing] terms like ‘good’ and ‘hard to vary’ in the sense of ‘not bad’ and ‘not easy to vary’ … eliminates the problem of gradation and positive argument, while preserving a shared and otherwise useful set of terminology.
Remembering and using the new meaning would take practice and effort. Why not just go with ‘has pending criticisms’ and ‘has no pending criticisms’ (or ‘problematic’ and ‘unproblematic’ for short)?
#2564·Benjamin Davies, 23 days agoThank you for sharing this. I missed this in my read of BoI, and I agree now that Deutsch is wrong on this point.
Separate from Deutsch and going forward with our own epistemological practices, I think it would be appropriate for us to use terms like ‘good’ and ‘hard to vary’ in the sense of ‘not bad’ and ‘not easy to vary’. This eliminates the problem of gradation and positive argument, while preserving a shared and otherwise useful set of terminology.
[We should continue] to use terms like ‘good’ and ‘hard to vary’ in the sense of ‘not bad’ and ‘not easy to vary’.
There are risks to changing the meaning of established, recognized terms. It could confuse newcomers to this forum who are familiar with Deutsch’s terminology.
#2569·Erik Orrje, 22 days agoBetween two abstractions (ambiguous statements made by us, and perfectly precise propositions).
I think so, yeah. But it’s been years since I watched DD’s talk on propositions. I’d have to re-watch it to give you a more competent answer.
I ask Chicagoans their thoughts on reason and rationality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRUS8dMGOF4