Search Ideas
2803 ideas match your query.:
I have an inexplicit criticism of this relating to “school subject”.
This actually seems anti-discussion. Sounds like a grouping of ideas that are only related by conceptual proximity, rather than building on each other.
It means that I have to scroll sideways to see the end of each line in a paragraph, which makes it more difficult to read ideas. It feels quite bad to use, compared to using Veritula on my computer, where the entire width of a paragraph is visible at all times.
A solution might be to adjust the mobile site dynamically to fit the user’s phone width.
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.
If ‘discussions’ take on a broader form, like we have discussed up to #2880, would this change?
Maybe. It could depend on which term Veritula adopts.
What if a user wishes to express that they take issue with something written in the entry/topic body text? I suppose they would quote it in their top-level criticism.
Yes.
Maybe about sections should themselves be criticizable… In which case they’re just regular top-level ideas. So maybe I could just remove about sections for future discussions. I’ll mull it over.
This change is on purpose. The zoom feature was buggy. After zooming out far enough, the navbar and footer got cut off on the right. So I replaced it with proper scrolling.
Would you say zooming was indispensable or just nice to have?
The new subscription system takes care of this.
Interview published today, with one of the founders of Wikipedia:
He argues, like I do, that Wikipedia should allow multiple competing articles on each topic.
I partly agree with him on other problems he identifies, but unfortunately he doesn’t come at it from a Popperian angle.
A recurring theme in the video is people thinking that reason is the domain of logical, explicit thought, whereas your emotions, gut, etc live in a different domain.
So to them, the question “Can you live your life 100% guided by reason?” means ‘Can you suppress your emotions, gut, etc your entire life?’
They’re right to answer ‘no’.
They’re wrong to think that’s what reason is about. See #2281, #2844.
Reflecting on one's past thought and action seems to be a key component of living a life 100% guided by reason. Thinking about this has inspired me to make an effort to search for methods and tools that help systematise, formalise and improve the quality of my self-reflection.
I already have a loose journalling habit, but it is completely free of schedule, structure or method.
This is a good idea.
I often receive criticisms that I have no counter-criticisms for, and it would be nice to be able to acknowledge those, both as a way to display gratitude, and as a way to indicate that I think something is tentatively settled.
Thank you for clarifying this. The idea of submitting a criticism and also immediately revising makes sense.
The criticisms you shared today (that inspired me to post #2884) are valid. This question came out of confusion as to how Veritula is intended to be used, rather than frustration directed at you.
Political Holism
Synonymous with large-scale social engineering, this is the political program that follows from Historicism. It is the attempt to remodel an entire society from a central blueprint, based on a historicist prophecy of an "ideal" state. Popper argued this program is both violent and irrational. It is violent because it requires the suppression of all dissent to enact the central plan, and it is irrational because when an entire system is changed at once, it becomes impossible to trace the consequences of any single action, making it impossible to learn from mistakes.
There are a few reasons people might send criticisms instead of revising an idea themselves:
- You get a chance to disagree.
- Submitting a criticism is easier.
- A criticism is a written record explaining why a revision is necessary.
Because of the third reason, you may see people post a criticism and then immediately revise your idea to address it.
Maybe I’m wrong but I’m sensing a bit of frustration between the lines. Please note that Veritula pursues a higher standard of error correction than other platforms. Some criticisms may be unexpected; discussions could go in a direction you did not anticipate. You may receive criticisms that would be deemed nitpicky on other platforms, but they’re not meant to be. They may go beyond what’s strictly socially acceptable. I intend criticism to be a gift to you. For ‘small’ criticisms, it’s usually best to revise accordingly and not counter-criticize.
Your idea reads more like a question than a criticism. But since I’ve (hopefully) answered it, I’m marking this response a criticism to neutralize it.