How Does Veritula Work?

Showing only those parts of the discussion which lead to #2130 and its comments.

See full discussion·See most recent related ideas
  Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.

Discussions can branch out indefinitely. Zoom out for the bird’s-eye view.
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP revised about 14 hours ago·#2281
Show idea #2279Show idea #21184th of 4 versions leading to #2130 (5 total)

Rational Decision-Making

Expanding on #2112

If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.

If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?

Maybe the criticisms aren’t decisive.

Criticism of #2281Criticized4oustanding criticisms
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP revised 7 days ago·#2134

If you don’t have any counter-criticisms, how could the criticisms not be decisive?

Criticism of #2130
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Popper didn’t say to correct some errors while ignoring others for no reason. He spoke of error correction, period.

Criticism of #2130
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP, 7 days ago·#2133

This criticism reminds me of a passage in Objective Knowledge, where Popper says some people defend ugly theories by claiming they’re tiny, like people do with ugly babies. Just because (you think) a criticism is tiny doesn’t mean it’s not ugly.

Criticism of #2130
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Superseded by #2138. This comment was generated automatically.

Criticism of #2130