Search Ideas

Yes (Logan Chipkin)

Is logic part of philosophy?

Doesn’t physics presume the existence of physical objects and laws? Ie it presumes the existence of something physical. So it presumes existence itself. In which case physics can’t be the arbiter here.

That’s not a counterargument - so maybe that’s it, after all.

(Logan Chipkin)

If non-existence is to mean anything at all, I think that’s it, yes.

Btw I do sometimes wonder if the problem of explaining why there’s something rather than nothing is connected to the fact that there’s a difference between Platonic reality and physical reality.

(Logan Chipkin)

I don’t mean it as a word game, I mean it literally.

Sorry yes

(Logan Chipkin)

The latter?

What do you think of: it’s the law of the excluded middle that causes the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.

Yes. Which doesn’t problematize most of her other ideas, fortunately.

But my guess is that any false idea could, if not corrected, result in humanity’s demise. So, should any of Rand’s ideas spread to fixation, we could have her to thank for going the way of the dodo.

Of course the fact that this ‘existence as foundationalism’ idea does not problematize her other ideas goes both ways - opponents of Objectivism cannot appeal to that idea as a wholesale refutation of Objectivism.

(Logan Chipkin)

Yes. Which doesn’t problematize most of her other ideas, fortunately.

But my guess is that any false idea could, if not corrected, result in humanity’s demise. So, should all of Rand’s ideas spread to fixation, we could have her to thank for going the way of the dodo.

Of course the fact that this ‘exist as foundationalism’ idea does not problematize her other ideas goes both ways - opponents of Objectivism cannot appeal to that idea as a wholesale refutation of Objectivism.

(Logan Chipkin)

I disagree. Existence is something to be explained.

(Logan Chipkin)

[H]aving a list of members would build a sense of rapport between the participants.

Just so you know, although I’ve implemented the list of members, I do want to be clear that Veritula is not meant for socializing.

Done as of 6251b6a, see veritula.com/members.

Yes re OR gate.

Re light switches: as I understand it, they either inhibit or permit the flow of electricity. But there’s no information there, let alone processing of information. So the example is flawed, I think.

Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'

Done, see #510.

I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.

I think you’re right, that would be best.

How to Structure Discussions

Overall, I think the starting point of a discussion isn’t all that important as long as you’re willing to keep correcting errors.

But for those looking for a starting point, you can take inspiration from what I wrote in #502. You can either structure a discussion around a single problem:

Discussion title: problem
Top-level ideas in the discussion: proposed solutions
Nested ideas: criticisms, counter-criticisms, and further solutions

Or, if the discussion is wider than a single problem, you can treat it as a collection of problems:

Discussion title: some topic (such as ‘abortion’)
Top-level ideas: problems
Nested ideas: solutions, criticisms and so on

Either way, discussions map onto Popper’s problem-oriented philosophy. If that’s what people want – I’m keeping discussion structures open and flexible in case they don’t.

And, as I wrote: “Note also that revisions act as solutions to problems. So do counter-criticisms, in a way.”

I agree with @tom-nassis that it’s best if discussion titles are problem statements (#506).

You marked this as a criticism but it sounds like you’re agreeing with me.

To be clear, I'm not opposed to 'trees' in general.

I was wondering whether 'discussion trees' can be replaced with 'problems-and-their-solutions trees' (for lack of a better phrasing).

Good idea. I’ve added this to my list of features to implement.

As I recall, previous iterations of Veritula had explicit designations such as ‘problem’ and ‘solution’ but I decided against continuing those designations. It’s been years but I think it was too rigid and felt too much like ‘red tape’. It’s easier when the only check box in this regard is a boolean for ‘criticism’.

Can’t discussions already map onto the structure you suggest?

Discussion title: problem
Top-level ideas in the discussion: proposed solutions
Nested ideas: criticisms, counter-criticisms, and further solutions

Note also that revisions act as solutions to problems. So do counter-criticisms, in a way.

So I think people can already use Veritula in the way you suggest.

They can also use it like this:

Discussion title: some topic (such as ‘abortion’)
Top-level ideas: problems
Nested ideas: solutions, criticisms and so on

It is under that definition. Not the kind of computer people traditionally think of when they hear the term, like a laptop or desktop, but it’s a computer nonetheless.

Since this is an idea for improvement, you’d want to mark it as a criticism. Try out the revision feature. Mark it as a criticism and then deselect my comment underneath the form to indicate that the revision addresses my comment.

Limitations of Veritula

Veritula can help you discover a bit of truth.

It’s not guaranteed to do so. It doesn’t give you a formula for truth-seeking. There’s no guarantee that an idea with no outstanding criticisms won’t get a new criticism tomorrow. All ideas are tentative in nature. That’s not a limitation of Veritula per se but of epistemology generally (Karl Popper).

There are currently no safeguards against bad actors. For example, people can keep submitting arbitrary criticisms in rapid succession just to ‘save’ their pet ideas. There could be safeguards such as rate-limiting criticisms, but that encourages brigading, making sock-puppets, etc. That said, I think these problems are soluble.

Opposing viewpoints should be defined clearly and openly. Not doing so hinders truth-seeking and rationality (Ayn Rand).

Personal attacks poison rational discussions because they turn an open, objective, impartial truth-seeking process into a defensive mess. It shifts the topic of the discussion from the ideas themselves to the participants in a bad way. People are actually open to harsh criticism as long as their interlocutor shows concern for how it lands (Chris Voss). I may use ‘AI’ at some point to analyze the tone of an idea upon submission.

Veritula works best for conscientious people with an open mind – people who aren’t interested in defending their ideas but in correcting errors. That’s one of the reasons discussions shouldn’t get personal. Veritula can work to resolve conflicts between adversaries, but I think that’s much harder. Any situation where people argue to be right rather than to find truth is challenging. In those cases, it’s best if an independent third party uses Veritula on their behalf to adjudicate the conflict objectively.