Search Ideas

So I’m open to replacing the word ‘discussion’ with a more general word. It should still communicate a sort of ‘grouping’ of ideas but need not be as narrow as ‘discussion’. Would that help?

Certainly. I think this makes a lot sense.

I think ‘entry’ is my favourite of the ones you mentioned (and of some others I explored with Gemini). ‘Topic’ is also alright, but seems more leading than ‘entry’. I like ‘entry’ because it seems the most agnostic to user intent, while also working fine with UI elements.

This would work fine for discussion-specific or idea-specific activity feeds, even at scale.

Interview published today, with one of the founders of Wikipedia:
https://youtu.be/8-0vUZ0hTK4?si=Szd_nS4UvCy9Mifi

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.

This leads me to believe that my untidiness may have to do with physiological lethargy, and that increasing availability of biological energy may contribute to a solution to it.

Marie Kondo says everything should have a home.

I think part of the problem is that I don’t have a dedicated final place where everything lives. I think creating and designating these spaces would go a long way, as I wouldn’t need to work out a place to put every item each time.

I think part of the problem is that I don’t have a dedicated finally place where everything lives. I think creating and designating these spaces would go a long way, as I wouldn’t need to work out a place to put every item each time.

It may be the case that food and dopaminergic substances decrease my threshold for what problems I feel are interesting enough to tackle at a given moment, including tidying up.

I notice that I tend to work harder at being tidy when I am well fed, or have consumed dopaminergic substances like nicotine.

I struggle keeping my private spaces as tidy as I would like.

Justificationism

The mistaken philosophical tradition holding that knowledge must be "justified" (i.e., proven, supported, or made probable) by appealing to an ultimate, infallible authority. Critical Rationalism identifies this entire approach as logically untenable, as any demand for justification leads to an inescapable logical trap known as the Münchhausen Trilemma: either an infinite regress (every justification needs a justification), circularity (the belief justifies itself), or dogmatism (the justification stops at a "self-evident" belief). Critical Rationalism is a non-justificationist philosophy; it rejects the entire quest for justified, certain foundations and replaces it with an emphasis on criticism and error correction.

Historicism

The mistaken belief that history is governed by discoverable, large-scale "laws of history" or "powerful historical trends". This belief leads to the idea of unconditional historical prophecy, which is anti-rational and politically disastrous, as seen in the philosophies of Plato, Hegel, and Marx. It is contrasted with the "piecemeal" method of making specific, conditional predictions.

This could lead to a cool knowledge graph feature down the line, where users could see how ideas might relate across discussions, and which ideas are referred to the most.

Idea: Links within Veritula could be made bidirectional. While viewing an idea, users could see all the ideas that refer to it. This could be displayed as a list of backlinks at the bottom of the idea’s page.

Dennis suggested I create this discussion and tag @dirk-meulenbelt and @darren-wiebe.

Logan Chipkin has also suggested I get in contact with @darren-wiebe in regards to putting together a CR encyclopedia or something of the sort.

I think it is worth noting that I am much more excited to publish standalone articles than to drop top-level ideas into discussion topics.

I am not marking this as a criticism, as my personal desires in this respect may be irrelevant to the goals of Veritula.

See #2777.

While it is true that discussions don’t restrict people from posting long-form content like what is on the ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ discussion, that is not the intuitive function of a discussion thread. I believe the long-form content in that discussion is much more natural to an article format.

If a goal of Veritula is for it to eventually be widely used, it should cater to at least some of what people are used to. The articles and encyclopedia formats are the most standard way for high-level information to be presented in written form, and internet users expect different kinds of content in articles vs discussions.

Works well 👍

I used to think that articles would need to be grouped in some way, but I no longer think so. Articles will often compete, even if they aren’t about the same or even similar topic.

E.g. an article ‘Easy-to-Vary Explanations’ would compete with an article ‘The Simulation Hypothesis’

Users would be able to point out and connect conflicting articles, but that wouldn’t cause them to be connected by topic, but rather by conflict.

Would ideas that no longer have pending criticisms (perhaps because the criticism chain has been flipped further down) be pulled out of the archive?

‘Articles’ are functionally no different than top-level ideas in a discussion thread.

It might make sense to have the new top-level idea form at the top, in the meantime. Compared to the current design, this would invite the creation of more top-level ideas.

Any progress on this? Scrolling to the bottom to submit new ideas is annoying.

The site isn’t at all big enough for this to matter yet.