Search Ideas

If ‘discussions’ take on a broader form, like we have discussed up to #2880, would this change? 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.

Given #2877, will this still be the case?

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.

Note: Discussions with outstanding top-level criticisms do not render a 'criticised' pill like ideas with outstanding criticisms do.

Since discussions themselves are criticisable, is there anything wrong with just titling a discussion 'Karl Popper' and then putting the equivalent of an encyclopedia article in the about section? That is functionally identical to what an article would be, but I am interested if you would prefer discussions not be used that way.

I just realised that it is possible to publish a top-level idea as a 'criticism' in a discussion, in the way I have advocated an article would be criticisable. I am struggling to understand what it means to criticise a discussion. @dennis-hackethal* may you please explain this?

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

I noticed that the idea count of some discussions in the Discussions page seem to be inaccurate. In the Keeping Tidy discussion, I count 13 ideas, including revisions, while the listing for it on Discussions says it contains 17.

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.

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

I agree with him on many of the problems he identifies, but he doesn’t come at it from a Popperian angle like I do. He argues, like I do, that Wikipedia should allow multiple competing articles on each topic.

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.

What is wrong with Pokemon? 😂

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 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.

It may be that 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.

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 it.

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

I’ve noticed that I have no problem keeping shared spaces tidy, which I suspect is driven by inexplicit ideas related to maintaining relationships, rather than understanding the underlying value in maintaining a tidy space.

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

The Open Society

This is the political philosophy of Critical Rationalism, detailed by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies. An open society is one in which each individual is largely enabled to make their own personal decisions, as opposed to a tribal or collectivist society. It replaces the justificationist political question, "Who should rule?", with the fallibilist question: "How can we structure our institutions so that we can remove bad rulers and bad policies without violence?". In this view, democracy is not "rule by the people" (an essentialist definition) but is valued as the only known institutional mechanism for error-correction and leadership change without bloodshed.

The Open Society

This is the political philosophy of Critical Rationalism, detailed by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies. An open society is one in which each individual is confronted with their own personal decisions, as opposed to a tribal or collectivist society. It replaces the justificationist political question, "Who should rule?", with the fallibilist question: "How can we structure our institutions so that we can remove bad rulers and bad policies without violence?". In this view, democracy is not "rule by the people" (an essentialist definition) but is valued as the only known institutional mechanism for error-correction and leadership change without bloodshed.

Fallibilism

This is the philosophical position that all human knowledge—every belief, theory, and observation—is conjectural, incomplete, and potentially mistaken. It holds that there is no conclusive justification and no rational certainty for any belief. Fallibilism is distinct from skepticism. Skepticism argues that because certainty is impossible, knowledge is impossible. Fallibilism agrees that certainty is impossible but denies that this invalidates knowledge. Fallibilism holds that people can and do possess real, objective knowledge, and that people can improve it through a process of error correction.