Dennis Hackethal

Veritula (Latin for ‘a bit of truth’) provides an objective, partly automated way to tentatively determine whether a given idea is true or false.

It follows Karl Popper’s epistemology, which says that ideas are assumed true until refuted. This approach leaves us free to make bold conjectures and use the full arsenal at our disposal to criticize these conjectures in order to correct errors and seek truth. It’s a creative and critical approach.

Veritula is a programmatic implementation of Popper’s epistemology.

Consider an idea I:

1

              I

Since it has no criticisms, it is considered unproblematic. It is rational to adopt it, tentatively consider it true, and act in accordance with it. Conversely, it would be irrational to reject it. Next, someone submits a criticism C1:

1
2
3

              I
              |
              C1

The idea is now considered problematic for as long as 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. Veritula offers beautiful diffing and version control for ideas. Alternatively, you can counter-criticize C1, thereby neutralizing it:

1
2
3
4
5

              I
              |
              C1
              |
              C2

Now, I is considered unproblematic again, since C1 is problematic and thus can’t be a decisive criticism anymore.

Since there can be many criticisms (which are also just ideas) and deeply nested counter-criticisms, the result is a tree structure. For example, it might look like this:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

              I
           /  |  \
         C11 C12 C13
         / \       \
       C21 C22     C23
                   / \
                 C31 C32

In this tree, I is considered problematic. Although C11 has been neutralized by C21 and C22, C12 still needs to be addressed. In addition, C23 would have neutralized C13, but C31 and C32 make C23 problematic, so C13 makes I problematic as well.

But you don’t need to keep track of these relationships manually. Veritula marks ideas accordingly, automatically.

Because decision-making is a special case of, or follows the same logic as, truth-seeking, such trees can be used for decision-making, too. When you’re planning your next move, Veritula helps you criticize your ideas and make a decision. Again, it’s rational to go with the idea that has no outstanding criticisms.

All ideas, including criticisms, should be formulated as concisely as possible.

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.

Again, criticisms are also just ideas, so the same is true for criticisms. Submitting each criticism separately has the benefit of requiring the proponent of an idea to address each criticism individually, not in bulk. If he fails to address even a single criticism, the idea remains problematic and should be rejected.

The more you discuss a given topic, the deeper and wider the tree grows. Some criticisms do apply to multiple ideas in the tree, but that needs to be made explicit.

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, adopt them.

Veritula acts as a dictionary for ideas.

One of the problems of our age is that the same discussions are had over and over again, sometimes by the same people. Part of the reason is widespread irrationality, expressed in the unwillingness to change one’s mind; another is that it’s simply difficult to remember or know what’s true and what isn’t. Discussion trees can get complex, so people shouldn’t blindly trust their judgment of whether some idea is true or problematic, whether nested criticisms have been neutralized or not. Going off of memory is too error prone.

Veritula 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 addressing them.

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.

How Does Veritula Work?

Veritula (Latin for ‘a bit of truth’) provides an objective, partly automated way to tentatively determine whether a given idea is true or false.

It follows Karl Popper’s epistemology, which says that ideas are assumed true until refuted. This approach leaves us free to make bold conjectures and use the full arsenal at our disposal to criticize these conjectures in order to correct errors and seek truth. It’s a creative and critical approach.

Veritula is a programmatic implementation of Popper’s epistemology.

Consider an idea I:

1

              I

Since it has no criticisms, it is considered unproblematic. It is rational to adopt it, tentatively consider it true, and act in accordance with it. Conversely, it would be irrational to reject it. Next, someone submits a criticism C1:

1
2
3

              I
              |
              C1

The idea is now considered problematic for as long as 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. Veritula offers beautiful diffing and version control for ideas. Alternatively, you can counter-criticize C1, thereby neutralizing it:

1
2
3
4
5

              I
              |
              C1
              |
              C2

Now, I is considered unproblematic again, since C1 is problematic and thus can’t be a decisive criticism anymore.

Since there can be many criticisms (which are also just ideas) and deeply nested counter-criticisms, the result is a tree structure. For example, it might look like this:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

              I
           /  |  \
         C11 C12 C13
         / \       \
       C21 C22     C23
                   / \
                 C31 C32

In this tree, I is considered problematic. Although C11 has been neutralized by C21 and C22, C12 still needs to be addressed. In addition, C23 would have neutralized C13, but C31 and C32 make C23 problematic, so C13 makes I problematic as well.

But you don’t need to keep track of these relationships manually. Veritula marks ideas accordingly, automatically.

Because decision-making is a special case of, or follows the same logic as, truth-seeking, such trees can be used for decision-making, too. When you’re planning your next move, Veritula helps you criticize your ideas and make a decision. Again, it’s rational to go with the idea that has no outstanding criticisms.

All ideas, including criticisms, should be formulated as concisely as possible.

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.

Again, criticisms are also just ideas, so the same is true for criticisms. Submitting each criticism separately has the benefit of requiring the proponent of an idea to address each criticism individually, not in bulk. If he fails to address even a single criticism, the idea remains problematic and should be rejected.

The more you discuss a given topic, the deeper and wider the tree grows. Some criticisms do apply to multiple ideas in the tree, but that needs to be made explicit.

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, adopt them.

Veritula acts as a dictionary for ideas.

One of the problems of our age is that the same discussions are had over and over again, sometimes by the same people. Part of the reason is widespread irrationality, expressed in the unwillingness to change one’s mind; another is that it’s simply difficult to remember or know what’s true and what isn’t. Discussion trees can get complex, so people shouldn’t blindly trust their judgment of whether some idea is true or problematic, whether nested criticisms have been neutralized or not. Going off of memory is too error prone.

Veritula 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 addressing them.

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.

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

Mostly done, apart from some polishing, as of 5f5c545. Eg @dennis-hackethal*.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As I write in the first link, the videos “mostly show bugs and nonsensical behavior, things that wouldn’t happen if animals were sentient.”

P.S. Dirk was here

As I write in the first link, the videos “mostly show bugs and nonsensical behavior, things that wouldn’t happen if animals were sentient.”

The following commits should address this:

• 3af3966 Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)

  The HTML title now says ‘Idea x revised by…’

• 6c70cea Underneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)

  It says ‘Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago’ for new ideas, ‘Dennis Hackethal revised 1 day ago’ for revisions

• d20d386 Explain that users can revise each others’ ideas

  As part of the alert on the revision page, when the user is about to revise someone else’s idea.

• c5748e3 Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s idea

  Underneath each idea.

• e0fbd41 List user under each revision in version history

  So that each version is clearly attributed to the corresponding user.

• 06d3241 List contributors at top of version history

  Comma-separated list to see all contributors at a glance

The following commits should address this:

• 3af3966 Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)

  The HTML title now says ‘Idea x revised by…’

• 6c70cea Underneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)

  It says ‘Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago’ for new ideas, ‘Dennis Hackethal revised 1 day ago’ for revisions

• d20d386 Explain that users can revise each others’ ideas

  As part of the alert on the revision page, when the user is about to revise someone else’s idea.

• c5748e3 Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s idea

  Underneath each idea.

• e0fbd41 List user under each revision in version history

  So that each version is clearly attributed to the corresponding user.

• 06d3241 List contributors at top of version history

  Comma-separated list to see all contributors at a glance. Eg see here

The following commits should address this:

• 3af3966 Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)

  The HTML title now says ‘Idea x revised by…’

• 6c70cea Underneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)

  It says ‘Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago’ for new ideas, ‘Dennis Hackethal revised 1 day ago’ for revisions

• d20d386 Explain that users can revise each others’ ideas

  As part of the alert on the revision page, when the user is about to revise someone else’s idea.

• c5748e3 Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s idea

  Underneath each idea.

• e0fbd41 List user under each revision in version history

  So that each version is clearly attributed to the corresponding user.

The following commits should address this:

• 3af3966 Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)

  The HTML title now says ‘Idea x revised by…’

• 6c70cea Underneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)

  It says ‘Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago’ for new ideas, ‘Dennis Hackethal revised 1 day ago’ for revisions

• d20d386 Explain that users can revise each others’ ideas

  As part of the alert on the revision page, when the user is about to revise someone else’s idea.

• c5748e3 Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s idea

  Underneath each idea.

• e0fbd41 List user under each revision in version history

  So that each version is clearly attributed to the corresponding user.

• 06d3241 List contributors at top of version history

  Comma-separated list to see all contributors at a glance

The following commits should address this:

• 3af3966 Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)
• 6c70cea Underneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)
• d20d386 Explain that users can revise each others’ ideas
• c5748e3 Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s idea
• e0fbd41 List user under each revision in version history

The following commits should address this:

• 3af3966 Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)

  The HTML title now says ‘Idea x revised by…’

• 6c70cea Underneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)

  It says ‘Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago’ for new ideas, ‘Dennis Hackethal revised 1 day ago’ for revisions

• d20d386 Explain that users can revise each others’ ideas

  As part of the alert on the revision page, when the user is about to revise someone else’s idea.

• c5748e3 Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s idea

  Underneath each idea.

• e0fbd41 List user under each revision in version history

  So that each version is clearly attributed to the corresponding user.

Dirk Meulenbelt the concept of revising someone else’s idea is not intuitive.

Dirk Meulenbelt says the concept of revising someone else’s idea is not intuitive.

Done as of cc8e3e9. It now says ‘x unchanged lines collapsed’.

Done as of cc8e3e9. It now says ‘x unchanged lines collapsed’. See eg this activity.