Comparing #465 (version 7) and #1815 (version 8)

 14 unchanged lines collapsed
Since it has no criticisms, it`I` is considered *unproblematic*. It is rational to adopt it, tentatively consider it true, and act in accordance with it. Conversely, it would generally be *irrational* to reject it. Next,it, consider it false, or act counter to it.↵
↵
Next, someone submits a criticism `C1`:
 7 unchanged lines collapsed
The idea `I` is now considered *problematic* for asso long as criticism `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`.`I` (now called `I2` to indicate the revision):↵
↵
```↵
                   Revise↵
              I ------------> I2↵
              |↵
              C1↵
```↵
↵
To track changes, Veritula offers beautiful diffing and *version control for ideas*. Alternatively,ideas.*↵
↵
If you cannot think of a way to revise `I`, you can *counter-criticize* `C1`, thereby neutralizing it:
 9 unchanged lines collapsed
Now, `I` is considered unproblematic again, since `C1` is problematic and thus can’t be a decisive criticism anymore.↵
↵
Sinceanymore.↵
↵
If you can think of neither a revision of `I` nor counter-criticism to `C1`, your only option is to accept that `I` has been (tentatively) defeated. You should therefore abandon it, which means: stop acting in accordance with it, considering it to be true, etc.↵
↵
Since there can be many criticisms (which are also just ideas) and deeply nested counter-criticisms, the result is a tree structure. For example, itas a discussion progresses, its tree might look like this:
 15 unchanged lines collapsed
Because decision-making is a special case of, orie follows the same logic as, truth-seeking, such trees can be used for decision-making, too. When you’re planning your next move,move but can’t decide on a city, say, Veritula helps you criticize your ideas and make a decision. Again, it’s rational to goact in accordance with the ideaideas that hashave no outstanding criticisms.

All ideas, including criticisms, should be formulated as concisely as possible.↵
↵
Separatepossible, and 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.
 3 unchanged lines collapsed
The more you discuss a given topic, the deeper and wider the tree grows. Some criticisms docan apply to multiple ideas in the tree, but that needs to be made explicit.↵
↵
Ideasexplicit by submitting them repeatedly.↵
↵
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.↵
↵
**Veritulathem.↵
↵
**Therefore, Veritula acts as a *dictionary for ideas*.**
 3 unchanged lines collapsed
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 revising it or addressing them.↵
↵
Manythe outstanding criticisms.↵
↵
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.**