Search Ideas

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.

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.

Done as of 7061786.

… I still think there are good and bad criticisms …

To conclude that a criticism is bad, we first need counter-criticisms. Otherwise, we have no reasons for considering a criticism bad. And once we have those reasons in the form of counter-criticisms, we can just state them.

"that"

Why is this word in quotes? If you mean to emphasize, use asterisks.

Since you’re voicing a disagreement, this idea should presumably be marked as a criticism.

… there is no difference between what I said and what you said.

Unclear what “what I said” and “what you said” refer to. Quotes

than

Should be ‘then’. I remind you to run your ideas through Grammarly before posting.

You can still tell whether some knowledge is true. You just can’t tell infallibly, ie with absolute certainty. There is a difference between certainty and knowledge.

If “good” is considered the same as “not bad” doesn’t that close the gap between Deutsch and Popper? (Using Edwin’s conception of good and bad.)

Do you have a quote of Edwin saying good = not bad?

We could try to save Deutsch’s terminology this way, sure. But I don’t think that’s what he means. He sees room for different gradations of ‘good’. For example, from BoI ch. 9:

[W]e should choose between policies not on the basis of their origin, but according to how good they are as explanations: how hard to vary.

It’s an understandable concern. I subscribe more to the insight from BoI chapter 10. Open societies inadvertently give their enemies more access than closed ones, but they also gain so much more knowledge and strength because of their openness that they can deal with their enemies better than if they were closed.

(I went back and forth on whether to label this as a criticism. I decided to do so but I want to be clear that it doesn’t mean I’m trying to tell you how to live your life.)

Superseded by #2524.

As a reminder, at some point we will need to do some housekeeping because any criticisms of #2108 are probably also going to be criticisms of #2109 and we want an intact criticism chain.

I’m marking this as a criticism so we don’t forget. And when we’re done with the housekeeping, we can say so in a counter-criticism to ‘check off’ that todo item.

Sorry but I don’t see how that solves the bad-actor problem. Bad actors would still be able to draw out the discussion to avoid paying, wouldn’t they?

Idea: when you create a bounty, you set the amount you’re willing to pay per criticism and a ceiling for the total you’re willing to spend (no. of crits * amount per crit).

Your card is authorized for twice the ceiling. In addition, there’s a button to report abuse. If you’re a good citizen, you’ll be charged the ceiling, at most. But if you’re found to submit arbitrary criticisms to avoid paying, the bounty stops early and your card is charged the full authorization.

If you submit a criticism, you won’t want to wait indefinitely to get paid just because others are keeping the discussion going in a different branch.

I suppose that would make it a bit harder for bad actors because they’d need to monitor multiple deadlines, but they could still submit arbitrary counter-criticisms just in time to avoid paying. Or is there something I’m missing?

… I am getting an error when I try to edit #2479…

Editing ideas should be fixed now. (You won’t need to edit this one, though, since I’ve done the requisite housekeeping.)