Search Ideas

Cache invalidation for user-based caching sounds like a nightmare.

Feature idea: page at /ideas/:id/guide which shows you an idea and helps you address all pending criticisms one by one, if any. At the end, it shows a message ‘You’re all set!’ or something like that.

Done as of f2531a2.

… all of our knowledge is tentatively true.

This is still false, see #2603. You moved it from one place to another but I don’t see how that helped.

But you didn’t write my suggestions in your own words. You ignored them and instead wrote something else.

Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge is tentatively true…

That isn’t true either.

I had already suggested replacements for the first sentence in both #2374 and #2589. At the time of writing, those ideas have no pending criticisms. You could have safely gone with either one.

Instead, you wrote something different for no apparent reason and introduced a new error in the process.

What are you doing man, come on

As of 2d3d38f, system-generated ideas are excluded from search results. They can be included again by checking a new checkmark in the form.

Now you’re using the word ‘certain’ with two different meanings, which is confusing. You could replace the second instance, “a certain”, with ‘some’ or just ‘a’.

Still, I don’t see why you’d use quotation marks for that. They don’t seem to be scare quotes, and they’re not a literal quote either.

Building on #2588, I recommend changing the opening lines of #2539 to something like ‘Fallibilism is the view that there is no criterion to say with certainty what’s true and what’s false. As a result, we inevitably make mistakes.’ And then adjust the rest accordingly.

In that case, I would agree with the second part of #2544 – just because something solves a problem doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed to be true, yes – but the first part is still wrong, IMO: “So there is no way to tell the truth of our knowledge.” There is, just not infallibly.

It certainly (pun intended) does not follow that all our knowledge contains errors, as you originally wrote.

… us[ing] terms like ‘good’ and ‘hard to vary’ in the sense of ‘not bad’ and ‘not easy to vary’ … eliminates the problem of gradation and positive argument, while preserving a shared and otherwise useful set of terminology.

Remembering and using the new meaning would take practice and effort. Why not just go with ‘has pending criticisms’ and ‘has no pending criticisms’ (or ‘problematic’ and ‘unproblematic’ for short)?

[We should continue] to use terms like ‘good’ and ‘hard to vary’ in the sense of ‘not bad’ and ‘not easy to vary’.

There are risks to changing the meaning of established, recognized terms. It could confuse newcomers to this forum who are familiar with Deutsch’s terminology.

I think so, yeah. But it’s been years since I watched DD’s talk on propositions. I’d have to re-watch it to give you a more competent answer.

Yes. But again, because it solves certain problems with existing money. There could similarly be good and bad explanations why certain religions would spread in the future.

I agree that it would be optimal if Zcash and Bitcoin had such price floors. But couldn't it still be the best alternative in certain jurisdictions, e.g. where it's impossible/impractical to own gold, and the local currency gets inflated away?

I don’t deny that Zcash might be decentralised and private.

For Zcash to become the next money, it is not sufficient for it to just be durable, fungible, private, decentralised, etc.

As long as it doesn’t have any underlying value, it will not be suitable as money.

You are using secondary attributes of good money as positive justifications for Zcash as good money, but you are failing to answer the criticism that Zcash has no underlying value.

Fixed as of f7833c6.

In a way, reactions might have epistemological relevance.

If an idea has pending criticisms, it can still have parts worth saving in a revision. Reactions based on paragraphs (#2458) could point out those parts.

The red “Criticized” label is far more prominent than reactions would be.

Between two abstractions (ambiguous statements made by us, and perfectly precise propositions).

It is the same as arguing for a specific god because the god you like has specific features. The god itself is still easy to vary.

I could still see someone with knowledge of psychology and theology provide a good explanation as to why certain gods and religions have spread in favour of others. All ideas are solutions to some problem.

Value comes from solving a problem.

Money solves (among other things) the problem of barter by being a medium of exchange. Different media solve this problem better than others. That determines its value.

I still don't see why there has to be a price floor set by the commodity's utility (for other things than being money)? Also, the value could still go to zero if that utility was no longer needed: Gold isn't guaranteed to be valued in industry or jewellry in the future.

Yes #2494 may have been slightly better as a criticism of #2411, though this still works IMO. But good to know for next time :)

We don’t need to take ‘good vs bad’ to be the only meaningful dichotomy for the idea to stand, so Edwin’s idea is not important to the argument.