Search Ideas

We cannot always be wrong. If all our ideas are false, then so is the the idea that all our ideas are false.

In the future, be sure to ‘neutralize’ a criticism when you revise it by checking the box that says “Supersedes previous version?”. Otherwise both the revision and the outdated version are counted as criticisms. Neutralizing ensures that only the most recent revision is counted as a criticism. See #1597.

You don’t need to do this again for this criticism. My counter-criticism already neutralizes it.

Avoid duplicate criticisms during revisions

When revising a criticism, check the box that says “Supersedes previous version?”. This will automatically ‘neutralize’ the older version to avoid counting a criticism twice.

They are now implemented.

Much easier to use semolina flour instead of regular flour. h/t @edwin-de-wit

We can't always be wrong, because that implies that correct ideas are not expressible, which makes no sense.

I think there is a sense in which we cannot always be sure that we are right, as there's always some possibility that we are wrong, even if we think we are completely right. And if we are completely right, there is nothing that is "manifest" about that.

Let's say I open my fridge, and there is cheese there, I conclude "I have cheese in my fridge". I may be hallucinating, or wrong about the category of cheese, or it just appears like cheese, or whatever. In that sense I could potentially be wrong. However I find it silly to think that I am infinitely wrong in my assessment of where my food is, all the time. That's like saying that we don't know what happens after we die. We do in every single way in which we use the term "know".

I think this idea that we are always wrong needs a rephrase, such as "we could always consider how we could be wrong", or "there is nothing that justifies our true belief", or "we could and should always criticise", or "nothing exists outside of criticism" (as we picked 1+1 and not 1+2 for some critical reason). The rephrase leaves open the possibility of being right a lot, like about where your food is, because you just found it, while still leaving open the possibility that the cheese you just saw is actually your butter.

as things get complex and more detailed, it becomes to know which part you are 100% right about.

I think an important consideration here is that because we have no way to prove something to be 100% true (because knowledge is conjectured, not justified), that we should assume it to contain areas of improvement and can never be 100% true. The best we can do is say it's true on the condition of axioms X Y Z and the fact that I cannot think of any further criticisms.

There isn’t a clear logical or computational method for determining whether one explanation is better than another. However, David Deutsch offers useful criteria for evaluating explanations. He suggests that a good explanation is better than a rival if it explains more — meaning it has fewer errors, fewer loose ends, or a broader explanatory range (i.e., it accounts for more phenomena) <my interpretation, not a quote>.

An idea can be either true or false — it’s a binary distinction, and some statements can be absolutely true. However, the critical nuance is that such truth is conditionally absolute. That is, it depends on the background knowledge and underlying assumptions or axioms. For example, 1 + 1 = 2 is absolutely true, but specifically within the framework of the Peano axioms.

An idea can be either true or false — it’s a binary distinction, and some statements can be absolutely true. However, the critical nuance is that such truth is conditionally absolute. That is, it depends on the background knowledge and underlying assumptions or axioms. For example, 1 + 1 = 2 is absolutely true, but only within the framework of the Peano axioms.

I’ve tried dough from a local pizzeria and compared how their dough tastes when they prepare it vs how it tastes when I prepare it at home. The crust wasn’t as crispy at home but overall the dough didn’t taste all that different. That tells me that my oven is at least decent for making pizza.

Their suggestion was that this approach might make the crust crispier. It did not. I’m starting to think the store-bought dough is the problem…

Dough was shaped horribly. Need to practice stretching it.

I felt like trying more sauce. Mistake. 100g is enough.

Some had suggested parbaking without any toppings. Horrible idea: the dough rose everywhere at once. Tomato sauce is required to weigh down the dough in the center.

Step 11 is wrong. I didn’t add the cheese until later.

I may want to go back to #1535 or some variation thereof where I put the cheese on after a parbake. It’s the best pie I’ve made to date.

Also note that #1515 had the best crust to date.

Salt is dialed in now: 3g is perfect.

The dough ended up too spread out, too big, so I tried to ‘compress’ it a bit, which created wrinkles.

I may want to go back to #1535 or some variation thereof where I put the cheese on after a parbake.

Also note that #1515 had a crispy crust.

Crust slightly better than last time but still too doughy.

Leaving the broiler on caused the cheese to cook too fast compared to the dough. But moving the pie to the bottom didn’t bake the dough fast enough to make up for that.

The crust was nice and crispy.

Center could have been slightly thinner.

According to this site, making the crust thinner should make it crispier.

Place on steel more carefully so it comes out circular.