Search Ideas

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

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.

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.