V
  • Discussions
  • Chronicles New
  • Activity
  • Search
  • Members
  • Bounties
  • Log in
  • Sign up
  1. ‘How Does Veritula Work?’
  2. #4902
  3. Links

Ideas linking to #4902

How Does Veritula Work?

Well, if you were to open the letter anyway, and somebody criticized you for it, you could offer the following counter-criticisms: 1) you cannot be expected to adopt an idea while being prevented from entertaining it; 2) somebody artificially constructed a situation designed to abuse the literal content of the two rules in #2140 in order to violate their intention, which is to promote critical thinking and rationality; 3) just because ideas have no pending criticisms doesn’t mean you don’t get to question those ideas – otherwise no one could ever submit a first criticism.

#2198·​Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 year ago·​Original #2197·​Criticism

… I don’t yet know how to reconcile that, nor do I have a satisfactory alternative theory or criticism to offer.

Do #2140 and its children help as an alternative theory?

#2217·​Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 year ago·​Original #2215

A Life Guided by Reason In #2281, I explain how Veritula helps you make rational decisions – in other words, how to live rationally, ie, a life guided by reason. (I use the words ‘reason’ and ‘rationality’ synonymously. The same goes for ‘unreason’ and ‘irrationality’.) A life guided by reason defies the dominant, Kantian philosophy of our age. Ayn Rand…

A Life Guided by Reason

In #2281, I explain how Veritula helps you make rational decisions – in other words, how to live rationally, ie, a life guided by reason. (I use the words ‘reason’ and ‘rationality’ synonymously. The same goes for ‘unreason’ and ‘irrationality’.)

A life guided by reason defies the dominant, Kantian philosophy of our age. Ayn Rand summarized that philosophy as, “Be rational, except when you don’t feel like it.”1 In other words, it says to mix reason and unreason; to stray from rationality arbitrarily; to be rational only sometimes. It claims that there is a necessary clash between reason and emotion. It is an attack on reason, an attempt to do the impossible – and it leads to dissatisfaction with yourself and conflict with others.

If you are rational only sometimes, if you stray from rationality arbitrarily, then you are irrational. There is no third option. This conclusion can be proven easily: if you tried to stray from rationality non-arbitrarily, ie, if you tried to come up with a considered argument for straying from rationality, you could only do so by following the steps in #2281. And those steps are the application of rationality again.

So it’s impossible to stray from rationality rationally. There is no gray area between reason and unreason. Rationality has an all-or-nothing character. This does not mean that reason has to snuff out all emotion. On the contrary: there is no necessary clash between rationality on the one hand and emotion on the other. Rationality means finding unanimous consent between emotion, explicit thought, inexplicit thought, and any other kind of idea.

If you follow the steps in #2281 consistently, then you are always rational. A life worth living is one guided exclusively by reason. Consistent application of rationality may be difficult at first, but with practice, it will get easier. Master it, and you will have a fighting chance of becoming what David Deutsch calls a beginning of infinity.


  1. Ayn Rand. Philosophy: Who Needs It. ‘From the Horse’s Mouth’ (p. 110). 1975. Kindle Edition. As quoted previously.

#2844·​Dennis HackethalOP, 12 months ago

A Society Guided by Reason

The same logic explained in #2281 and #2844 applies to ideas across people as well. A free market or free society, by definition, is one where all interactions are based on unanimous consent.

One difference between the market and individuals is freedom of association. For example, when people disagree, they can just go their separate ways. But a single man cannot do that when parts of him disagree; a single man cannot dissociate from himself.

This difference does not change the overall desirability of unanimous consent both within and across minds. It’s an ‘implementation detail’.

#3013·​Dennis HackethalOP, 12 months ago

I don’t know anyone on Veritula. Can I still join?

Yes! Start by chiming in on one of the existing discussions or creating a new discussion. People will likely contribute.

If you have a topic you’d rather discuss in private, with a select few, make your discussion private. No one except the people you invite and admins will see it.

You can even have productive discussions by yourself. Not sure what to make for dinner? Want to move but not sure where? Start a discussion, submit some ideas, criticisms, and counter-criticisms, and see which ideas remain without any pending criticisms.

You’ll gain clarity to make rational decisions.

#3413·​Dennis HackethalOP, 11 months ago

How Does Veritula Work? Veritula (Latin for ‘a bit of truth’) can help you live a life guided exclusively by reason. To reason, within any well-defined epistemology, means to follow and apply that epistemology. Unreason, or whim, is an undue departure from it. Epistemology is the study of knowledge – basically, the study of what helps knowledge grow, what hinders…

How Does Veritula Work?

Veritula (Latin for ‘a bit of truth’) can help you live a life guided exclusively by reason.

To reason, within any well-defined epistemology, means to follow and apply that epistemology. Unreason, or whim, is an undue departure from it. Epistemology is the study of knowledge – basically, the study of what helps knowledge grow, what hinders its growth, and related questions.

Veritula follows, and helps you apply, Karl Popper’s epistemology, Critical Rationalism. It’s a continuation of the Athenian tradition of criticism and the only known epistemology without major flaws.1

Critical Rationalism says that ideas are assumed true until refuted. This approach leaves us free to make bold guesses and use the full arsenal at our disposal to criticize these guesses in order to solve problems, correct errors, and seek truth. It’s a creative and critical approach. Critical Rationalism is a fallibilist philosophy: there is no general criterion of truth to determine with certainty whether any given idea is true or false (Tarski). We all make mistakes, and by an effort, we can correct them to get a little closer to the truth. Rejecting all forms of mysticism and the supernatural, Veritula recognizes that progress is both possible and desirable, and that rational means are the only way to make ongoing progress.

Veritula is a programmatic implementation of Popper’s epistemology.

Veritula provides an objective, partly automated way to tentatively determine whether a given idea is problematic. It does not tell you what to think – it teaches you how to think.

On Veritula, ideas are discrete and immutable. Consider an idea I:

1
plaintext
I

Since it has no criticisms, we tentatively consider I unproblematic. It is rational to adopt it and act in accordance with it. Conversely, it would be irrational to reject it, consider it problematic, or act counter to it. (See this quick guide for more details on rational decision-making.)

Next, someone submits a criticism C1:

1
2
3
plaintext
I
|
C1

The idea I is now considered problematic so long as criticism C1 is not addressed. How do you address it? If you agree with the criticism, you can revise I so that C1 doesn’t apply anymore, which restores the previous state with just the standalone I (now called I2 to indicate the revision):

1
2
3
4
plaintext
Revise
I ------------> I2
|
C1

To track changes, Veritula offers beautiful diffing and version control for ideas.

If you disagree with C, you can counter-criticize it instead, thereby neutralizing it with a new criticism, C2:

1
2
3
4
5
plaintext
I
|
C1
|
C2

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

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, viewing it as unproblematic, 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, as a discussion progresses, one of its trees might look like this:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
plaintext
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.

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

Since decision-making follows the same logic as truth-seeking, you can use these trees to make decisions, too. Veritula implements unanimous consent as defined by Taking Children Seriously, a parenting philosophy that builds on Popper’s epistemology. When you’re planning your next move but can’t decide on a city, say, Veritula helps you criticize your ideas and make a rational decision – meaning a decision you’ll be happy with. Again, it’s rational to act in accordance with ideas that have no pending criticisms.

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

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 can apply to multiple ideas in the tree, but that needs to be made explicit by submitting them repeatedly.

Comments that aren’t criticisms – eg follow-up questions or otherwise neutral comments – are considered ancillary ideas. Unlike criticisms, ancillary ideas do not invert their respective parents’ statuses. They are neutral.

One of the main benefits of Veritula is that the status of any idea in a discussion can be seen at a glance. If you are new to a much-discussed topic, adopt the displayed status of the ideas involved: if they are marked problematic, reject them; if they are not, adopt them.

Therefore, Veritula acts as a dictionary for ideas.

One of the problems of our age is that people have same discussions over and over again. 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 pending criticisms, the rational approach is to either abandon it or to save it by revising it or addressing all pending 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.

Still have questions about rationality? Read the technical paper, learn about Veritula’s recursive epistemology and how to structure discussions, or read the quick guide to rational decision-making.

Want personalized help tailored to your own specific needs? Hire Dennis, founder of Veritula, for personal tutoring, or run a bounty.


  1. Popperian epistemology has some flaws, like verisimilitude, but Veritula doesn’t implement those.

#5546·​Dennis HackethalOP revised about 2 months ago·​Original #358·​ Battle-tested

Forum Rules Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion. Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment…

Forum Rules

Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion.

Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment, brigading, rage baiting, public shaming, and persistent bad-faith argumentation or refusal to engage substantively.

Veritula takes intellectual property seriously and reserves the right to take down content that infringes on others’ intellectual property.

Veritula also reserves the right to take down obscene content such as pornography.

Content written with AI may be submitted, but only if disclosed: when posting, tick “Text written with AI?” if AI wrote any part of your idea, including polishing or translating your own writing. Veritula is a place for genuine discussion and truth-seeking, so we’d prefer to avoid talking to meat proxies without realizing it. AI content is notoriously verbose – don’t flood discussions with it. In addition, it’s your responsibility to ensure that AI detectors give negative results for content you don’t mark as written with AI. Repeat submission of content written with AI that is not disclosed and/or overly verbose is a bannable offense.

Badges reward your own contributions, so ideas written with AI don’t count toward them, disclosed or not. Badges follow the current rules, so those earned under earlier rules may be revoked.

To ensure a high quality of discussions and avoid having to refute and re-refute ideas already known to be wrong, members of Veritula are expected to make an effort to act rationally and take ideas seriously. They should stay at least somewhat up to date on discussion outcomes and avoid repeating the same discussions. Advocacy of ideas with pending criticisms and/or rejection of ideas without pending criticisms – in short, deviations from rationality as defined here – may result in a warning when someone should reasonably already know better. Repeat offenses may result in a temporary or permanent ban. Don’t rely on memory alone to decide whether to adopt an idea. Look it up on Veritula and go by whether the idea has pending criticisms – dispassionately, the way a judge would look up a law in a legal text. If you personally disagree, you can say something like: ‘Although I personally disagree, at the current state of the discussion, idea X (link to the idea on V) is (or is not) rationally adoptable.’ To make things easier, there’s a search page. You can also subscribe to notifications on an idea to stay up to date on any new criticisms (hit the bell icon in the upper right corner of an idea). You can also enable email notifications in your settings.

Serious instances of off-platform behavior that clearly would have violated these rules on-platform may result in removal.

Depending on the severity of an infraction, moderators may issue a warning, revoke badges, temporarily lock an account, or permanently ban the account.

Looking for loopholes in these rules, or abusing the letter to violate the spirit of these rules, is a bannable offense.

Moderation decisions are at the discretion of Veritula.

Users may appeal moderation decisions by contacting the moderators within a reasonable time after a decision. Appeals should explain why the decision was wrong. Appeals are reviewed at the moderators’ discretion. The same decision may be appealed only once. Excessive arguing over a moderation decision, asking for exceptions or special treatment, complaining about the rules, and similar behavior, are all bannable offenses. What counts as similar, excessive, and asking for special treatment is up to moderators. It’s usually best to accept a moderation decision and move on.

Talks with moderators should remain respectful and constructive. Changes to these rules should be proposed by criticizing this idea before issues arise. Changes are generally not retroactive unless specified otherwise.

Site-wide terms and the terms of any bounty you take part in apply as well.

#6025·​Dennis HackethalOP revised 3 days ago·​AI-assisted·​Original #4364·​ Battle-tested

“Can you live your life 100% guided by reason?”

A recurring theme in the video is people thinking that reason is the domain of logical, explicit thought, whereas your emotions, gut, etc live in a different domain.

So to them, the question “Can you live your life 100% guided by reason?” means ‘Can you suppress your emotions, gut, etc your entire life?’

They’re right to answer ‘no’.
They’re wrong to think that’s what reason is about. See #2281, #2844.

#2901·​Dennis HackethalOP, 12 months ago

Yeah. I mean finding unanimous consent between different kinds of ideas generally, not just between ideas about rationality. See also #3049 and #2281.

#3695·​Dennis HackethalOP, 10 months ago

Maybe I don’t understand the question, but I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all criterion to use for that scenario. It depends on the content of the ideas and how they conflict exactly.

All I can say without more info is that we can try to criticize ideas and adopt the ones with no pending criticisms. That’s true for any kind of idea – explicit, inexplicit, conscious, unconscious, executable, etc. See #2281.

#3696·​Dennis HackethalOP, 10 months ago

Virtues

Rationality: The commitment to the ongoing deliberate use of conjecture and criticism.

This is vague and compatible with irrational uses of conjecture and criticism. People can use them to come up with evasions and lies.

Would it make sense to refer to #2281 instead?

#3130·​Dennis Hackethal, 11 months ago·​Criticism

Core Moral Virtues (influenced by Ayn Rand and CR) Rationality: The commitment to the ongoing deliberate use of conjecture and criticism, and to only adopting ideas that have no pending criticisms. Honesty: A refusal to evade one's thoughts, a commitment to searching for one's own errors, and a refusal to fake reality to others. Integrity: The refusal to permit a…

Core Moral Virtues (influenced by Ayn Rand and CR)

  • Rationality: The commitment to the ongoing deliberate use of conjecture and criticism, and to only adopting ideas that have no pending criticisms.

  • Honesty: A refusal to evade one's thoughts, a commitment to searching for one's own errors, and a refusal to fake reality to others.

  • Integrity: The refusal to permit a breach between one's convictions and one's actions.

  • Independence: The acceptance of one's own mind as the first and final executor of rationality in one’s life.

  • Justice: The application of rationality in judging ideas, people, and actions, and acting on those evaluations proportionately.

  • Productiveness: The application of rationality to sustaining and improving one's life and circumstances.

  • Pride: An insatiable drive to find and fix errors in one's character, knowledge, and creations. “[M]oral ambitiousness”, as Ayn Rand puts it.

#3164·​Benjamin DaviesOP revised 11 months ago·​Original #3089

Life Choice: Should Someone Highly Interested in AGI Research Jeopardize Their Existing Career to Pursue It?

Should suffering be avoided? Not if it's useful..?

Self-coercion should be avoided, yes. When we coerce ourself, we are not creating knowledge and instead arbitrarily favoring one idea over another. If a part of you disagrees that something is useful, then don’t do it!

You can always find a common preference with yourself. Problems are soluble. Do not act on ideas that have pending criticisms.

Dennis Hackethal·​#2281·​about 1 year ago
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…
Criticized1
#3831·​Dennis Hackethal, 10 months ago·​Criticism

What Makes One Idea Better Than Another?

Related: #4902, #5114

#5260·​Dennis Hackethal, 2 months ago

“[T]he growth of knowledge depends entirely upon disagreement.”

Karl Popper, The Myth of the Framework

Veritula – A Bit of Truth·​By Dennis Hackethal·​Terms & Privacy·​AI Assistants·​Status

e95d287