Search ideas

We can't always be wrong, because that implies that correct ideas are not expressible, which makes no sense.

I think there is a sense in which we cannot always be sure that we are right, as there's always some possibility that we are wrong, even if we think we are completely right. And if we are completely right, there is nothing that is "manifest" about that.

Let's say I open my fridge, and there is cheese there, I conclude "I have cheese in my fridge". I may be hallucinating, or wrong about the category of cheese, or it just appears like cheese, or whatever. In that sense I could potentially be wrong. However I find it silly to think that I am infinitely wrong in my assessment of where my food is, all the time. That's like saying that we don't know what happens after we die. We do in every single way in which we use the term "know".

I think this idea that we are always wrong needs a rephrase, such as "we could always consider how we could be wrong", or "there is nothing that justifies our true belief", or "we could and should always criticise", or "nothing exists outside of criticism" (as we picked 1+1 and not 1+2 for some critical reason). The rephrase leaves open the possibility of being right a lot, like about where your food is, because you just found it, while still leaving open the possibility that the cheese you just saw is actually your butter.

as things get complex and more detailed, it becomes to know which part you are 100% right about.

I think an important consideration here is that because we have no way to prove something to be 100% true (because knowledge is conjectured, not justified), that we should assume it to contain areas of improvement and can never be 100% true. The best we can do is say it's true on the condition of axioms X Y Z and the fact that I cannot think of any further criticisms.

as things get complex and more detailed, it becomes to know which part you are 100% right about.

I think an important consideration here is that because we have no way to prove something to be 100% (because knowledge is conjectured, not justified), that we should assume it to contain areas of improvement and can never be 100% right. The best we can do is say it's true on the condition of axioms X Y Z and the fact that I cannot think of any further criticisms.

If we use the correspondance theory of truth, then truth consists of explanations that correspond "perfectly" to reality. In that sense all our statements are false: we don't have those explanations that perfectly correspond, all our actual statements are approximations, or deductions from approximations (1+1=2 is a deduction from a set of explanations, but that set is not entirely true - since the set is inconsistent and incomplete)

There isn’t a clear logical or computational method for determining whether one explanation is better than another. However, David Deutsch offers useful criteria for evaluating explanations. He suggests that a good explanation is better than a rival if it explains more — meaning it has fewer errors, fewer loose ends, or a broader explanatory range (i.e., it accounts for more phenomena). I believe Popper also describes a solution to be better if it has less unintended consequences than a rival idea. <my interpretations, not quotes>.

The above statement is correct. But instead of "conditional" I would rather use "contextual" or at the right level of abstraction. If we're talking about math, we don't need to bring in other subjects by fiat. Within math, 1+1 = 2 is 100% true. Of course that is in the context of the things being added are identical and the + sign is said to mean "collecting" or "adding." Now, this doesn't mean 1+1=2 is unquestionable, someone might say "what if we are adding an apple and an orange?" And this also doesn't mean that we get this empirically, it is still a guess. You can also know more about it. Like Brett talks about the Peano's axiom. At that point, you are going in more detail, which might be needed if it solves your problem.

My understanding so far is fallible means anyone can be wrong, which means that there is something to be right about, and as such one can be 100% right. y as things get complex and more detailed, it becomes to know which part you are 100% right about. And at that point, you go with what solves your problem, unless your problem is finding ideas that are 100% true, in which case the best you can do is guess how that idea can be false.

There isn’t a clear logical or computational method for determining whether one explanation is better than another. However, David Deutsch offers useful criteria for evaluating explanations. He suggests that a good explanation is better than a rival if it explains more — meaning it has fewer errors, fewer loose ends, or a broader explanatory range (i.e., it accounts for more phenomena) <my interpretation, not a quote>.

An idea can be either true or false — it’s a binary distinction, and some statements can be absolutely true. However, the critical nuance is that such truth is conditionally absolute. That is, it depends on the background knowledge and underlying assumptions or axioms. For example, 1 + 1 = 2 is absolutely true, but specifically within the framework of the Peano axioms.

An idea can be either true or false — it’s a binary distinction, and some statements can be absolutely true. However, the critical nuance is that such truth is conditionally absolute. That is, it depends on the background knowledge and underlying assumptions or axioms. For example, 1 + 1 = 2 is absolutely true, but only within the framework of the Peano axioms.

I’ve tried dough from a local pizzeria and compared how their dough tastes when they prepare it vs how it tastes when I prepare it at home. The crust wasn’t as crispy at home but overall the dough didn’t taste all that different. That tells me that my oven is at least decent for making pizza.

I’ve made pizza almost every day since the last revision (around 16 pizzas). I’ve gotten pretty good at it.

Ingredients

• Store-bought dough (312g)
• Tomato sauce (90g)
• Mozzarella (part skim, home-shredded, 100g)
• 2g extra virgin olive oil

Then, for garnish:

• Oregano
• Fresh basil leaves
• A dash of salt

Steps

1. Preheat oven for 1 hour. Ends up somewhere around 450°F.
2. Preheat pizza steel for 30 min on top rack underneath broiler, reaches about 650°F.
3. In the meantime, rest dough on counter top until it reaches room temperature.
4. Grate cheese and measure tomato sauce.
5. Stretch the dough.
6. Dust peel with flour.
7. Remove excess flour from dough.
8. Place dough on peel.
9. Add tomato sauce.
10. Place dough on steel; still on top rack with the broiler still on.
11. Bake for 2 minutes.
12. Take out to add oregano and cheese.
13. Bake for another minute on top rack; again, the broiler is still on.
14. Take out steel and let pizza rest on steel for another minute to make the bottom crispy.
15. In the meantime, apply small amount of olive oil to the outer crust and sprinkle salt on outer crust.
16. Remove from steel and serve.

Their suggestion was that this approach might make the crust crispier. It did not. I’m starting to think the store-bought dough is the problem…

Dough was shaped horribly. Need to practice stretching it.

I felt like trying more sauce. Mistake. 100g is enough.

Some had suggested parbaking without any toppings. Horrible idea: the dough rose everywhere at once. Tomato sauce is required to weigh down the dough in the center.

Ingredients

• Store-bought dough (1 pound)
• Crushed tomatoes (135g)
• Mozzarella (part skim, shredded, 130g)

Then, for garnish:

• Oregano
• Fresh basil leaves
• 3g of salt

Steps

1. Preheat oven for 1 hour. Ends up somewhere around 450°F.
2. Preheat pizza steel for 30 min on top rack underneath broiler, reaches about 630°F.
3. Rest dough until it reaches room temperature.
4. Add salt to the tomato sauce.
5. Grate cheese.
6. Stretch the dough.
7. Dust peel with flour.
8. Remove excess flour from dough.
9. Place dough on peel.
10. Place dough on steel; still on top rack.
11. Bake for 2 minutes.
12. Take out and add sauce and cheese.
13. Bake for another 1.5 minutes.

Results:

• Top: https://drive.proton.me/urls/F39AZW3SW8#Z91hQA29jWxV
• Bottom: https://drive.proton.me/urls/Y8VXB0M114#zkTrWfPfo7wc

Step 11 is wrong. I didn’t add the cheese until later.

I may want to go back to #1535 or some variation thereof where I put the cheese on after a parbake. It’s the best pie I’ve made to date.

Also note that #1515 had the best crust to date.

Salt is dialed in now: 3g is perfect.

Superseded by #1565. This comment was generated automatically.

The dough ended up too spread out, too big, so I tried to ‘compress’ it a bit, which created wrinkles.

I may want to go back to #1535 or some variation thereof where I put the cheese on after a parbake.

Also note that #1515 had a crispy crust.

Crust slightly better than last time but still too doughy.

Leaving the broiler on caused the cheese to cook too fast compared to the dough. But moving the pie to the bottom didn’t bake the dough fast enough to make up for that.

The crust was nice and crispy.

Superseded by #1560. This comment was generated automatically.