Search Ideas

There is a typo in "[i]t has a tpyo."

Now I’m submitting a criticism that contains a flaw. It has a tpyo.

Try counter-critizing my criticism by pointing out the typo. Observe that the red label saying ‘Criticized’ on #1874 disappears once you submit your criticism.

In other words, your counter-criticism ‘neutralizes’ my criticism.

Revising ideas and submitting counter-criticisms are the two ways to address criticisms.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if they are related should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

… must be their its own.

You’ve introduced a new typo. You should get in the habit of carefully reviewing your texts before you submit them.

If you change “Each idea and criticism, even if they are related must be their its own” to ‘Ideas (including criticisms) should generally be submitted separately even if related’, you get to address both current criticisms.

Each idea and criticism, even if they are related must be their its own.

The word ‘must’ is too strict here. As I explained in #1870, ideas should generally be submitted separately, but there are exceptions.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Each idea and criticism, even if they are related must be their its own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

Good question. That can happen.

It’s ultimately at the author’s discretion. It’s generally best practice to submit one idea at a time.

However, if the author is aware of the risk of receiving bulk criticism but decides the risk is worth the benefit of including multiple ideas in a single post – because multiple ideas are required to make this particular post coherent, say – then that’s his prerogative.

It varies by situation and requires good judgment.

What if the point an author is trying to make takes multiple ideas? Say we are talking about comic books and I say "DC comics are better than Marvel, because Thor is a better character than Superman, even thou Batman might be a better character than Iron man?"

I’ve now submitted three criticisms at once. Recall that addressing them requires two steps: changing your idea and deselecting the criticisms your change addresses.

You can address all three criticisms in the same revision, as I believe you’ve done before. Or you can divvy it up. That’s up to you.

Addressing criticisms and not being easily overwhelmed when you receive multiple criticisms at once are both crucial aspects of rationality. You’re on the right track.

We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in its own.

It’s true that each criticism should be submitted separately, but that’s not related to bulk criticism in the way you seem to be suggesting.

Imagine a post containing multiple ideas. Then a single criticism of that post will make it look as though all of the ideas in that post are problematic. If the criticism actually only applies to a subset of the ideas, that’s bulk criticism.

For example, somebody submits a post saying: ‘I love Batman. I love Spider-Man.’ Then somebody else criticizes the post by saying ‘Batman sucks because <some reasoning>.’ Now it looks like Spider-Man has received criticism, too, even though the criticism only applies to Batman.

See if you want to change the quoted passage to: ‘We submit only one idea at a time. Same for criticisms.’

Each criticism, even if they are related must be in its own.

Typo: “in its own” should be ‘on its own’.

Well done. Now let’s practice addressing multiple criticisms at once. Here’s the first one:

[W]e first start with an idea/conjecture.

It need not be a conjecture. It could be a conclusion of some other train of thought, say. I recommend changing it from “idea/conjecture” to just ‘idea’.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in its own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

The gap between "it's" and "its" is big. My lack of paying attention to detail is becoming more and more obvious. In any case.

Making progress. Just a minor quibble next, but worth practicing with:

Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own.

There’s a typo: “it's” should be ‘its’ (no apostrophe).

See if you can revise your idea to address this criticism. Remember, there are two steps: changing the spelling and deselecting this criticism.

Ah. Now I get it!

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

I see that you’ve revised your idea, but you forgot to deselect the criticism (#1848) your revision addresses. As I wrote in that criticism (emphasis added):

Click ‘Revise’, change ‘avoid duplicate criticism’ to ‘avoid duplicate ideas’, deselect this criticism underneath the form, then hit submit.

But #1848 is still being rendered as a criticism of your revision, and your revision has the red label that says ‘Criticized (1)’ as a result.

When a revision addresses a criticism, you don’t want it to continue being marked as criticized by that criticism. That’s why the revision form lists criticisms, so you can uncheck the ones your revision addresses.

Try revising #1851 and remember to uncheck idea #1848 underneath the revision form. Uncheck this criticism (the one I am writing now) as well.

Once you’ve submitted the revision form, verify that #1848 is not being shown underneath the new revision.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

Checking that box is useful when you want a revision to override the original.

If you check it, Veritula automatically posts a criticism of the original idea on your behalf. This way, if the original idea is a criticism, it gets ‘neutralized’, which is usually what you want when you revise a criticism.

Consider what would happen if you didn’t neutralize an old criticism: then the parent idea would show two pending criticisms.

#1833 (your idea) isn’t a criticism. Even if it were, it’s already been criticized (#1848). So checking the box isn’t strictly necessary. But feel free to check it and see what happens.

What of for "Supersedes previous version?" box? Would that be selected, since the new version would supersede the current version.

Decent start with some room for improvement. Let’s learn Veritula by doing. I’ll submit criticisms of your idea one by one and you can practice Veritula by addressing them. Here’s the first one:

Also, avoid duplicate criticism.

Yes, but we should avoid duplicate ideas in general.

Try revising #1833 to address this criticism. Click ‘Revise’, change ‘avoid duplicate criticism’ to ‘avoid duplicate ideas’, deselect this criticism underneath the form, then hit submit.

Make sure that at each step you understand why you’re performing that step. Ask first if you don’t.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own. Also, avoid duplicate criticism.

What Does “Battle Tested” Mean?

One of @edwin-de-wit’s ideas recently got the blue label that says “battle tested” – well done, Edwin! – so he asked me what it means.

It means that the idea has at least three criticisms, all of which have been addressed.

The label is awarded automatically. It’s a tentative indicator of quality. Battle-tested ideas generally contain more knowledge than non-battle-tested ones.

When there are two conflicting ideas, each with no outstanding criticisms, go with the (more) battle-tested one. This methodology maps onto Popper’s notion of a critical preference.

The label is not an indicator of an idea’s future success, nor should it be considered a justification of an idea.

You can see all battle-tested ideas currently on Veritula on this page. Those are all the best, most knowledge-dense ideas on this site.

Recursive Epistemology

Veritula implements a recursive epistemology. For a criticism to be outstanding, it can’t have any outstanding criticisms itself, and so on, in a deeply nested fashion.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

def criticized? idea
  outstanding_criticisms(idea).any?
end

def outstanding_criticisms idea
  criticisms(idea).filter { |c| outstanding_criticisms(c).none? }
end

def criticisms idea
  children(idea).filter(&:criticism?)
end

This approach is different from non-recursive epistemologies, which handle criticisms differently. For example, they might not consider deeply nested criticisms when determining whether an idea is currently criticized.