Search Ideas
1940 ideas match your query.:
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’.
As with #2098, implementing an accurate count of the number of shown criticisms gets very tricky once the user starts submitting new criticisms on filtered parents.
For filtered parents, I could put an asterisk behind the count. On hover, explain that the total number of pending criticisms may be greater on the unfiltered view.
For filtered parents, I could put an asterisk behind the count. On hover, explain that some pending criticisms may be hidden due to filtering.
Still, the count is valuable in that it shows how many criticisms need to be addressed to restore an idea.
I have this working to the point that it shows n / m, but getting the counter to update properly when new criticisms are posted on filtered parents is surprisingly difficult – so difficult the juice may not be worth the squeeze.
Fixed as of 27123bd.
Shouldn’t have more than one criticism at a time.
That in and of itself isn’t a bug if the different revisions leading to the highlighted idea have different numbers of criticisms.
The issue also isn’t that there are other revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea.
The real issue is twofold:
- On page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea is shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.
- As you cycle through the parent’s versions, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings. Now the criticism count on the parent does always match the number of shown criticisms, but it seems arbitrary to suddenly not filter the children anymore.
The feature wasn’t quite polished. For example, arrow navigation through the dropdown menu was missing. And there were some bugs. But it’s polished now and the bugs should be fixed as of 4ced719.
It leaves room for something, but it’s not clear what.
I think this is partly to do with the fact that Veritula has no clear way of indicating when a resolution has been reached or a problem has been solved.
Should take personal responsibility and not blame the tool.
If your goal, like mine, is to live a life that is 100% guided by reason, which basically means (#2844) to never adopt ideas that have pending criticisms, you could use Veritula to identify ideas of yours that have pending criticisms so you can either reject those ideas or address the criticisms.
To that end, I suggest you submit a single idea you are confident is correct, and then try your hardest to criticize it. Depending on the idea, I may join you.
It’s a good goal to perfect an idea to the point you’ve mastered it, addressed all objections, understand the objections better than your opponents, etc.
If this sounds up your alley, I recommend starting with something easy. Zelalem tried writing a summary of fallibilism which, after 13 revisions, still contains mistakes.
I think this is partly to do with the fact that Veritula has no clear way of indicating when a resolution has been reached or a problem has been solved.
It does. For example, you could post an idea saying ‘I have decided to do X.’ Like in your discussion on where to move.
You can also indicate resolution of top-level criticisms by archiving them when they have pending counter-criticisms. The meta discussion is an example of top-level ideas reaching resolutions in this way.
Would you like to try formulating an explicit methodology for how you want to use Veritula?
I noticed that you’ve started a bunch of discussions but I don’t believe you’ve reached a resolution on any of them.
Would you like to try formulating an explicit methodology for using Veritula?
This is ambiguous. To be clear, are you asking if I would like to make an explicit personal methodology for using the site, as part of my effort described in #2899? Or are you inviting me to formulate an explicit methodology for users of Veritula in general? (I realise these aren’t mutually exclusive.)
This is ambiguous.
That’s a criticism, so this idea should be marked as a criticism.
Doesn’t communicate a grouping of ideas.
Sounds like a voice chat (like Twitter spaces)
Doesn’t communicate a grouping of ideas.
Doesn’t communicate a grouping of ideas.
#2877 doesn’t mean you should put entire articles in the about section. (That’s still what top-level ideas are for.) It means that, if you’re willing to use the about section for that, then by your own logic there’s no need for this new feature.