Search Ideas
3446 ideas match your query.:
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.
Getting customers addicted making it "so they cannot exercise their free will" denies human creativity, and opens the door for all sorts of draconic laws where people are "protected from themselves".
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.
According to Popper (ibid), opponents of world 3 “usually say that all these entities are, essentially, symbolic or linguistic expressions of subjective mental states”, that they’re merely, “means of communication…”
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.
Rules for Participation
Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion.
Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment, brigading, rage baiting, public shaming, and persistent bad-faith argumentation or refusal to engage substantively.
Veritula takes intellectual property seriously and reserves the right to take down content that infringes on others’ intellectual property.
Veritula also reserves the right to take down obscene content such as pornography.
Serious instances of off-platform behavior that clearly would have violated these rules on-platform may result in removal.
Depending on the severity of an infraction, moderators may issue a warning, temporarily lock an account, or permanently ban the account.
Looking for loopholes in these rules, or abusing the letter to violate the spirit of these rules, is a bannable offense.
Moderation decisions are at the discretion of Veritula.
Users may appeal moderation decisions by contacting the moderators within a reasonable time after a decision. Appeals should explain why the decision was wrong. Appeals are reviewed at the moderators’ discretion. The same decision may be appealed only once.
Talks with moderators should remain respectful and constructive. Changes to these rules should be proposed before issues arise by criticizing this idea.
Rules for Participation
Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion.
Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment, brigading, rage baiting, public shaming, and persistent bad-faith argumentation or refusal to engage substantively.
Veritula takes intellectual property seriously and reserves the right to take down content that infringes on others’ intellectual property.
Veritula also reserves the right to take down obscene content such as pornography.
Serious instances of off-platform behavior that clearly would have violated these rules on-platform may result in removal.
Depending on the severity of an infraction, moderators may issue a warning, temporarily lock an account, or permanently ban the account.
Looking for loopholes in these rules, or abusing the letter to violate the spirit of these rules, is a bannable offense.
Moderation decisions are at the discretion of Veritula.
Users may appeal moderation decisions by contacting the moderators within a reasonable time after a decision. Appeals should explain why the decision was wrong. Appeals are reviewed at the moderators’ discretion. The same decision may be appealed only once.
Talks with moderators should remain respectful and constructive. Changes to these rules should be proposed before issues arise.
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.
Drugs are currently illegal. Athough 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).
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.