Dennis Hackethal

Yes re OR gate.

Re light switches: as I understand it, they either inhibit or permit the flow of electricity. But there’s no information there, let alone processing of information. So the example is flawed, I think.

Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'

Done, see #510.

I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.

I think you’re right, that would be best.

How to Structure Discussions

Overall, I think the starting point of a discussion isn’t all that important as long as you’re willing to keep correcting errors.

But for those looking for a starting point, you can take inspiration from what I wrote in #502. You can either structure a discussion around a single problem:

Discussion title: problem
Top-level ideas in the discussion: proposed solutions
Nested ideas: criticisms, counter-criticisms, and further solutions

Or, if the discussion is wider than a single problem, you can treat it as a collection of problems:

Discussion title: some topic (such as ‘abortion’)
Top-level ideas: problems
Nested ideas: solutions, criticisms and so on

Either way, discussions map onto Popper’s problem-oriented philosophy. If that’s what people want – I’m keeping discussion structures open and flexible in case they don’t.

And, as I wrote: “Note also that revisions act as solutions to problems. So do counter-criticisms, in a way.”

I agree with @tom-nassis that it’s best if discussion titles are problem statements (#506).

You marked this as a criticism but it sounds like you’re agreeing with me.

Good idea. I’ve added this to my list of features to implement.

You suggest replacing discussion trees:

[I]nstead of […] discussion trees […] users would articulate problems and their solutions.

But then you also write:

Of course, the problem itself could be criticized as well as its proposed solutions.

Which means you’d still have trees regardless. So that sounds like a contradiction.

As I recall, previous iterations of Veritula had explicit designations such as ‘problem’ and ‘solution’ but I decided against continuing those designations. It’s been years but I think it was too rigid and felt too much like ‘red tape’. It’s easier when the only check box in this regard is a boolean for ‘criticism’.

Can’t discussions already map onto the structure you suggest?

Discussion title: problem
Top-level ideas in the discussion: proposed solutions
Nested ideas: criticisms, counter-criticisms, and further solutions

Note also that revisions act as solutions to problems. So do counter-criticisms, in a way.

So I think people can already use Veritula in the way you suggest.

They can also use it like this:

Discussion title: some topic (such as ‘abortion’)
Top-level ideas: problems
Nested ideas: solutions, criticisms and so on

It is under that definition. Not the kind of computer people traditionally think of when they hear the term, like a laptop or desktop, but it’s a computer nonetheless.

Since this is an idea for improvement, you’d want to mark it as a criticism. Try out the revision feature. Mark it as a criticism and then deselect my comment underneath the form to indicate that the revision addresses my comment.

Limitations of Veritula

Veritula can help you discover a bit of truth.

It’s not guaranteed to do so. It doesn’t give you a formula for truth-seeking. There’s no guarantee that an idea with no outstanding criticisms won’t get a new criticism tomorrow. All ideas are tentative in nature. That’s not a limitation of Veritula per se but of epistemology generally (Karl Popper).

There are currently no safeguards against bad actors. For example, people can keep submitting arbitrary criticisms in rapid succession just to ‘save’ their pet ideas. There could be safeguards such as rate-limiting criticisms, but that encourages brigading, making sock-puppets, etc. That said, I think these problems are soluble.

Opposing viewpoints should be defined clearly and openly. Not doing so hinders truth-seeking and rationality (Ayn Rand).

Personal attacks poison rational discussions because they turn an open, objective, impartial truth-seeking process into a defensive mess. It shifts the topic of the discussion from the ideas themselves to the participants in a bad way. People are actually open to harsh criticism as long as their interlocutor shows concern for how it lands (Chris Voss). I may use ‘AI’ at some point to analyze the tone of an idea upon submission.

Veritula works best for conscientious people with an open mind – people who aren’t interested in defending their ideas but in correcting errors. That’s one of the reasons discussions shouldn’t get personal. Veritula can work to resolve conflicts between adversaries, but I think that’s much harder. Any situation where people argue to be right rather than to find truth is challenging. In those cases, it’s best if an independent third party uses Veritula on their behalf to adjudicate the conflict objectively.

@dirk-meulenbelt argues that couples consider their first date to be the start of their relationship when it really wasn’t because you can’t ‘break up’ after a first date.

In other words, people choose somewhat arbitrary designations which aren’t morally relevant by themselves.

Heather, who’s publicly shared that she’s had an abortion, says people treat a zygote as a clump of cells only when they don’t want it. When they want it, then they consider it a baby. They can’t have it both ways.

Mostly done, apart from some polishing, as of 5f5c545.

Now that there are notifications, people should be able to @mention each other.

The more ideas there are in a discussion, the further the form for top-level ideas is pushed down. Then people don’t know how to submit a new idea and comment on an existing one instead, even if it’s unrelated, as happened with #448. So I need to make this clearer.

See #449. Since this is a separate concern, not directly related to #337, you’d want to submit a top-level idea rather than comment on #337. The form for top-level ideas is currently at the bottom of this page. I obviously need to make this clearer.

Tom Nassis asks (#448):

I wanted to ask about how many members are here.

Currently 7.

And whether it's encouraged to invite more people, in order to add more and more conversations.

Yes.