Search Ideas

I agree, but this criticism chain is about predatory businesses limiting their customers’ creativity, not their own.

denies human creativity

No, they’re still creative, and they could overcome the addiction if they knew how, but their creativity is being severely limited.

Explanatory knowledge consists of statements. Statements are at least in part explicit. Therefore inexplicit explanatory knowledge is not possible.

Entirely explicit explanatory knowledge is not possible either, as all knowledge refers to other knowledge implicitly.

Popper counters this criticism with two thought experiments (107-108).

First, if all our machines and tools were destroyed, and so were our subjective knowledge of how to use them, but libraries were not, then we could re-learn to use them by reading books.

Second, if all libraries were also destroyed, we couldn’t re-learn from books. Civilization wouldn’t re-emerge for millennia.

Therefore, Popper argues, world 3 is important and real.

Popper says there are three worlds (OK 107):

I suggest…that there are physical worlds and a world of states of consciousness, and that these two interact. And I believe that there is a third world…
Among the inmates of my ‘third world’ are, more especially, theoretical systems; but inmates just as important are problems and problem situations. And I will argue that the most important inmates of this world are critical arguments, and what may be called—in analogy to a physical state or to a state of conscious- ness—the state of a discussion or the state of a critical argument; and, of course, the contents of journals, books, and libraries.

Key source on this topic: Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach.

My specific edition is from 1994, Oxford University Press, New York. I’ll simply call it OK in this discussion.

Drugs are currently illegal. Although drug-related deaths have gone down recently, in the US, they were at an all-time high.

Drugs being illegal does not seem to deter drug use enough to warrant taking away drug users’ legal recourse, proper testing, and other such benefits of (legal) drug use.

Not all cases of wanting more of something are cases of addiction.

I want to buy a second chair because I enjoy the first one, not because I cannot help but buy another.

Getting customers addicted means making it so they cannot exercise their free will (or have serious trouble doing so). They’re effectively unable to criticize ‘buy another’ as a course of action.

There's something to be said for a degree of complexity and novelty to a name. It lends air of thoughtfulness, and could spark curiosity in potential new users.

See also: "Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell", the highly successful educational YT channel. I know people who are big fans, and yet can't pronounce the name correctly.

'Veritula' is not a difficult name as compared to other highly successful explanatory enterprises, like 'Veritasium.'

Easier than ‘Veritula’, though. At least it’s a known word.

As of 8e0a6e1, comments on each idea are shown in the following order: criticisms first, regular comments last. Within each category, uncontroversial comments are shown first. Lastly, comments are sorted by creation date (ascending).

Not as simple as #4349.

Not as simple as #4349.

Not as simple as #4349.

More or less a duplicate of #4349.

Could simply sort comments by pending criticism first, creation date second. (Variation of #4274.)

This has been implemented, sans page at /:username/bounties, which seems unnecessary.

Done, mostly as of 346fb25, then polished in 6dbf721, 5381525, 9f0f936, and 91e6f27.

Making alcohol illegal has been tried and was disastrous. Drugs are already illegal, which is arguably also disastrous. Those who advocate MAKING most drugs illegal but not alcohol are, I think, people who want to outlaw weed.

Drugs are too broad of a category. Is widespread cocaine use the same as occasional magic mushrooms? The latter is suggested to have neuro-protective benefits.

To produce, purchase, sell, or to use?

If the drug + violation becomes a pattern, it's rational to outlaw it. (Assuming the outlawing works.)

E.g. alcohol is prohibited for drivers, even for drivers who are great drunk drivers.

In today's society they only have this ability to a limited degree, and would still have to deal with the drug users in public.