Search Ideas

How will people know what n / m means?

See #1992: “The instructions at the top of the page are clear that not all ideas are being rendered.”

For all ideas, the total number of pending criticisms (if any) should always be shown, even if they are not all being rendered.

The instructions at the top of the page are clear that not all ideas are being rendered.

Hiccdown should have support for ids and class names in the tag symbol. Like Hiccup.

1
2

[:'div#my-id.my-class.another-class']
# => <div id="my-id" class="my-class another-class"></div>

It should also allow mixing:

1
2

[:'div#my-id.my-class.another-class', {id: 'override', class: 'additive'}]
# => <div id="override" class="my-class another-class additive"></div>

In other words, the id from the hash would override the id from the symbol, and the class from the hash would be added to the classes from the symbol.

Thanks!

It’s just an example. We’re not actually trying to solve the problem of where you want to live. We’re trying to understand how Veritula works.

Another example is physics. The idea ‘Newtonian physics is the true explanation of gravity’ has pending criticisms. For all we know, it’s false. But the idea ‘As an architect, I use Newtonian physics to make calculations because it’s simpler than general relativity and gives nearly identical results on earth’ may have no pending criticisms. So it’s rational for the architect to go with Newtonian physics.

The architect isn’t moving the problem into the future. Finding the true explanation of gravity was never his problem. He’s picking the best tool for the job, today.

It does. But wouldn't that explain away the problem itself? I guess understanding and moving the problem into the future where I might be better suited to solve it is a good idea. So now I am acting on an explanation that solves the problem tentatively.

Right, I was just replying from my phone, which I should not have done, as it is easy to make mistakes like that.

Welcome to Veritula, Lola.

I generally like complete silence when I think but sometimes I’ll play soft music to change things up.

You make a fair point, so I’ve updated my blog post to reflect that the ideal noise level varies based on people’s preferences.

Basically, choose a noise level that maximizes your ability to think and hear your own thoughts.

The mere idea ‘continue living in city X’ may have pending criticisms. But so might the idea ‘leave X’. Maybe leaving is too expensive right now, or you’d have to find a new job and you like your job more than you want to leave, etc. In which case there could be a third idea: ‘At some point I’d like to leave X, but for right now that’s too expensive and too cumbersome, so staying in X for another year is fine.’ And that idea may not have any pending criticisms.

Does that make sense?

The current city J live in. … But J still live here.

You should really be able to distinguish the letter J from the letter I. They’re not difficult to tell apart.

I’ve previously suggested that you paste your comments into Grammarly before you post them. Remember to do that until you get so good it routinely finds no issues.

If you have a criticism of that suggestion, state it (in a new discussion). Don’t just ignore the suggestion and continue making spelling mistakes.

The current city I live in. I have outstanding criticisms about it. But I still live here.

Veritula uses a serif font …

Upon reflection, that doesn’t matter. The letters J and I aren’t difficult to tell apart in sans-serif fonts, either.

That was my only problem! I think it's important to note how sound affects our thoughts, and I appreciate your take on it. In the past, I would use music to block out thought quite often, and I haven't seen many people take note of how harmful that can be towards growth and knowledge creation. I think the revision makes the idea a little less sharp and more helpful. Overall, I really enjoyed the article.

That was my only problem! I think it's important noting how sound affects our thought and I appreciate your take on it. In the past I would use music to block out thought quite often and I haven't seen many people take note on how harmful that can be towards growth and knowledge creation. I think the revision makes the idea a little less sharp and more helpful. Overall, I really enjoyed the article.

I don’t think that solves it because one shouldn’t act on a problematic idea either. And falseness can still be the reason an idea is problematic in the first place.

So, please give an example.

Fixed as of 985d05a.

Done as of bfe04e2.

I see the value in having quiet areas to think, I agree that it is important, but I at times find the quiet distracting. I sometimes work better in environments that have some level of noise, nothing like a club, more like a somewhat crowded cafe. So are you talking about “quieter” environments such as a cafe, or are you talking about complete silence in your observation?

https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/quiet

When there are two links next to each other, like when it says “Dennis Hackethal revised” in the activity feed, the user needs some way to see that they’re two links and not just one. Underline on hover shows them that.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept that idea as true until it is criticized. The idea is considered problematic until all criticism is resolved. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we would seek to resolve the problems within the idea before we act on it. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if related, should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

Recursive Epistemology

Veritula implements a recursive epistemology. For a criticism to be pending, it can’t have any pending criticisms itself, and so on, in a deeply nested fashion.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

def criticized? idea
  pending_criticisms(idea).any?
end

def pending_criticisms idea
  criticisms(idea).filter { |c| pending_criticisms(c).none? }
end

def criticisms idea
  children(idea).filter(&:criticism?)
end

This approach is different from non-recursive epistemologies, which handle criticisms differently. For example, they might not consider deeply nested criticisms when determining whether an idea is currently criticized.

What Does “Battle Tested” Mean?

One of @edwin-de-wit’s ideas recently got the blue label that says “battle tested” – well done, Edwin! – so he asked me what it means.

It means that the idea has at least three criticisms, all of which have been addressed.

The label is awarded automatically. It’s a tentative indicator of quality. Battle-tested ideas generally contain more knowledge than non-battle-tested ones.

When there are two conflicting ideas, each with no pending criticisms, go with the (more) battle-tested one. This methodology maps onto Popper’s notion of a critical preference.

The label is not an indicator of an idea’s future success, nor should it be considered a justification of an idea.

You can see all battle-tested ideas currently on Veritula on this page. Those are all the best, most knowledge-dense ideas on this site.