Search Ideas
4178 ideas match your query.:
… nor is the user given an opportunity to correct any mistakes to that effect.
The user could simply run the program again.
@dirk-meulenbelt says it isn’t clear what counts as a variation vs an entirely different explanation. I’ll add that the program can’t currently recognize the difference, nor is the user given an opportunity to correct any mistakes to that effect.
Some variations are good (and then described as reach). I could vary the axis-tilt explanation of the seasons by replacing earth with any other tilted planet (as I did in #5526). I could do this infinitely many times, including for yet-to-be-discovered planets and even imaginary ones. But that doesn’t make the explanation worse. (That isn’t your fault, I think Deutsch just hasn’t gotten technical enough about the difference between reach vs. easy to vary.)
In a situation where both competing explanations have infinitely many variations (eg #5528), the algorithm returns an equal ranking, even though one explanation is clearly preferable over the other. (“Because of axial tilt while I wear 1 green hat”, though still bad, is intuitively preferable to “Because god did it while wearing 1 green hat.”)
The approach underestimates how easy it is to come up with variations. It’s trivially easy to come up with infinitely many just by, for example, adding nonsense that has an incrementing counter:
➜ hard-to-vary git:(master) python3 htv.pyHard-to-Vary Explanation Comparator-----------------------------------What question are you trying to answer?> Why are there seasons?Enter explanations one at a time.Press Enter on an empty line when you're done.Explanation 1: Because god did it.Explanation 2: Because of axial tilt.Explanation 3:============================================================Explanation:Because god did it.Enter variations of this explanation that would still work to explain the same thing.Press Enter on an empty line when you're done.Variation 1: Because god did it while wearing 1 green hat.Variation 2: Because god did it while wearing 2 green hats.Variation 3: Because god did it while wearing 3 green hats.Variation 4: Because god did it while wearing 4 green hats. And so on.Variation 5:============================================================Explanation:Because of axial tilt.Enter variations of this explanation that would still work to explain the same thing.Press Enter on an empty line when you're done.Variation 1: Because of axial tilt while I wear 1 green hat.Variation 2: Because of axial tilt while I wear 2 green hats.Variation 3: Because of axial tilt while I wear 3 green hats.Variation 4: Because of axial tilt while I wear 4 green hats. And so on.Variation 5:============================================================Question:Why are there seasons?============================================================HARDNESS-TO-VARY RANKING============================================================Rank 1Explanation: Because god did it.Working variations submitted: 4 variationsRank 1Explanation: Because of axial tilt.Working variations submitted: 4 variationsFewer working variations = harder to vary.Result:The two explanations are equally hard to vary.
When variations are given for both competing explanations, the user is none the wiser which variation of the ‘better’ explanation he should adopt. There’s no clear preference.
#5526 is an example. Even ignoring the obviously false outcome, which I caused for illustrative purposes, we don’t know which variation of the better explanation to prefer.
This approach leads to wrong results when more variations are given for the true explanation:
➜ hard-to-vary git:(master) python3 htv.pyHard-to-Vary Explanation Comparator-----------------------------------What question are you trying to answer?> Why are there seasons?Enter explanations one at a time.Press Enter on an empty line when you're done.Explanation 1: Because god did it.Explanation 2: Because of axial tilt.Explanation 3:============================================================Explanation:Because god did it.Enter variations of this explanation that would still work to explain the same thing.Press Enter on an empty line when you're done.Variation 1: Because angels did it.Variation 2: Because satan did it.Variation 3: Because Buddha did it.Variation 4:============================================================Explanation:Because of axial tilt.Enter variations of this explanation that would still work to explain the same thing.Press Enter on an empty line when you're done.Variation 1: Because of axial tilt for earth.Variation 2: Because of axial tilt for Mars.Variation 3: Because of axial tilt for Saturn.Variation 4: Because of axial tilt for Neptune.Variation 5: Because of axial tilt for Uranus.Variation 6:============================================================Question:Why are there seasons?============================================================HARDNESS-TO-VARY RANKING============================================================Rank 1Explanation: Because god did it.Working variations submitted: 3 variationsRank 2Explanation: Because of axial tilt.Working variations submitted: 5 variationsFewer working variations = harder to vary.Result:"Because god did it." is harder to vary than "Because of axial tilt.".
Take the question: Why do seasons occur?
Should credit Deutsch for the example. Reference BoI chapter 1.
She spends part of the year in Hades…
Hades is god the underworld, not a place.
A simple implementation of hard-to-vary
This is my submission for Veritula's bounty for Idea #3069, which asks for an executable implementation that can compare arbitrary English explanations by how hard they are to vary.
Code: hard-to-vary
I've implemented the approach as a small interactive program. It takes arbitrary explanations supplied by the user, collects working variations of each, and ranks the explanations by hardness to vary.
I think hard-to-vary can be implemented more simply than the approaches considered in Dennis's blog, Hard to Vary or Hardly Usable?. The basic idea I'm using is this: if an explanation is harder to vary, there should be fewer ways of changing it while still having it explain what it's supposed to explain.
The program starts by asking the user what question they're trying to answer and then asks for a list of proposed explanations. It goes through each explanation one at a time and asks the user to come up with variations of it that would still work as explanations. The user can enter as many as they can find, then move on to the next explanation.
Finally, the program counts the working variations and ranks the explanations. Fewer working variations means harder to vary, while equal numbers mean equally hard to vary. So if explanation A has two working variations and explanation B has five, A is harder to vary than B.
An example
Take the question: Why do seasons occur?
One explanation is the story of Persephone. She spends part of the year in Hades, Demeter grieves while she's gone, and this accounts for the seasonal cycle.
I might try changing the explanation in a few ways:
- Persephone spends five months in Hades instead of six.
- It's Demeter's son who is taken rather than her daughter.
- Zeus orders Persephone to return periodically rather than her return depending on the details involving the pomegranate.
The details have changed, but the basic explanatory story can still do the same job. Suppose I find three such variations.
Now I try the explanation involving Earth's axial tilt. I might be able to change the stated tilt from 23.4 degrees to 23.5 degrees without substantially affecting the explanation. But if I start making large changes to the geometry while trying to explain the same observations, the explanation stops working. Suppose I find one working variation.
The program therefore ranks axial tilt as harder to vary: one working variation versus three. That's the entire comparison procedure.
How I understand Dennis's criticism
I don't understand Dennis as claiming that Deutsch simply gets the Persephone example wrong. The issue in the blog is how we get from examples like this, where we seem to have an intuition that one explanation is harder to vary, to a sufficiently specified procedure that could compare explanations in general.
Dennis initially explores numerical quality scores, but that immediately creates problems. Why should one explanation have a score of 500 rather than 550? Why choose that scale? How do criticisms affect the score? How do criticisms of criticisms affect it? I agree with Dennis that these choices look arbitrary.
He eventually gets rid of the quality scores entirely. Instead of trying to measure the quality of an idea, his program keeps track of pending criticisms. His proposed rule becomes: adopt ideas without pending criticisms and reject ideas that have them.
There's something important about how that system works, though. The program doesn't generate criticisms itself; people do. And that's intentional: Dennis says "I’m not looking to formalize or automate creativity as a whole". Creative input can come from users while the program handles the non-creative part of the process. I agree that you can have a rational decision-making process while outsourcing the creative part to the user.
I just don't see why we can't do the same thing with HTV. Let the user come up with variations and say which ones they think still work. The program doesn't need to understand the explanation or come up with the variations itself. It keeps track of the variations and compares the counts.
This doesn't seem fundamentally different from Dennis letting the user tell his program that something is a criticism. In fact, in the blog he explicitly avoids having the program figure out whether a comment is really a criticism: the user checks a box saying that it is. So in my program the user is supplying a working variation; in his, the user is supplying a criticism. In both cases the user is providing the part that requires understanding and judgment, and the program does something simple with that input.
It also means I don't need the quality scores Dennis runs into trouble with. I don't need to decide how many points axial tilt gets compared with Persephone. I'm just asking: how many ways have we actually found to change each explanation while still having it work?
But isn't this subjective?
One criticism Dennis quotes is:
“Also, isn’t the difficulty of changing an explanation at least partly a property not of the explanation itself but of whoever is trying to change it? If I’m having difficulty changing it, maybe that’s because I lack imagination. Or maybe I’m just new to that field and an expert could easily change it.”
I think this is true. I just don't think it's a problem specific to HTV.
Imagine I can't think of any working variations of an explanation, but an expert can immediately think of five. Then yes, our results will be different. But isn't that also what happens with criticism? I might look at an idea and fail to see anything wrong with it while someone who knows much more about the subject immediately sees a serious criticism.
The same goes for participation. An idea on Veritula might have zero pending criticisms simply because hardly anyone has tried to criticize it. That doesn't mean there are literally no criticisms of it. Someone could find one tomorrow. Dennis's answer in the blog is basically that if this bothers you, try to find a criticism yourself. If you can't find one, why not adopt the idea?
I think HTV can work the same way. Zero working variations doesn't mean that we've somehow proven there are no possible variations. It means we haven't found one. If you think the explanation is actually easy to vary, try to come up with a variation that still works.
So yes, the result depends on the knowledge and creativity of the person using the program. But I think rational decision-making is always going to depend on what criticisms, arguments, alternatives, etc. a person is actually aware of. I don't see how Veritula escapes that either.
What about human judgment?
There's another obvious question: who decides whether a variation actually works?
For this program, the user does. I don't think we can get rid of that kind of human judgment, at least until we get AGI. Two people can disagree about whether a variation still explains the thing we're trying to explain. They can also disagree about whether two variations are really different or are basically the same variation stated twice.
Again, I think Veritula has the same underlying issue. People still have to decide whether something really is a criticism, whether a countercriticism actually answers it, whether two criticisms are redundant, and so on. Dennis's program can keep track of the structure, but the structure only means something if those judgments make sense.
Take an extreme case. If a malicious moderator rejects every good criticism of an idea and accepts nonsense countercriticisms, the idea could end up showing 0 pending criticisms. I obviously shouldn't look at the 0 and conclude that the idea is rational to adopt. I'd want to read what happened and decide whether I agree with it.
I don't mean this as a criticism specific to Veritula. I think it's just a limit of this kind of approach. At some point people have to make judgments, and people can disagree about them. Ultimately everyone is their own moderator when it comes to their own decision-making. I have to decide which arguments I accept, which criticisms I think have been answered, and so on.
The same is true with my HTV program. If someone gives me a ranking based on ten supposed working variations, I don't have to accept the ranking blindly. I can look at the ten variations and decide that five don't really work and three others are basically duplicates. My result would then be different.
I'm fine with that. I don't think the goal of either program should be to somehow remove judgment from rational thinking. The program gives us a procedure for what to do with the judgments we've made.
What does the program actually contribute?
Dennis writes:
“We can’t just outsource everything to the user – the app has to do some things or it has no value.”
This was actually the part of the blog that made me think about Veritula itself. What is Veritula doing, and what is it outsourcing?
It outsources the interesting creative part to people. People come up with the ideas. People come up with the criticisms. The user can even tell the program whether something they've written is a criticism by checking a box. The program then keeps track of the structure and tells us how many criticisms are pending.
My program is doing something similar, except with variations. People come up with the explanations and the working variations. The program keeps track of them, counts them, and ranks the explanations.
So I don't think I'm outsourcing everything to the user any more than Veritula is. I'm outsourcing the part that requires creativity and judgment. The actual decision rule is implemented in the program.
For Veritula, that rule ultimately depends on whether there are pending criticisms. For my program, it depends on the number of working variations: fewer working variations means harder to vary.
Where I disagree with the blog
I agree with Dennis that the quality sliders in the blog don't work. I also agree with his decision to let users supply the creative input rather than expecting the program to generate it.
Where I disagree is that I think once we allow this same freedom for HTV, we can construct a similarly simple program for it. The user comes up with explanations and tries to vary them while keeping them working. The program counts the working variations and ranks the explanations.
There are still all the normal problems of human knowledge: maybe I missed a variation, maybe I accepted a bad one, maybe someone else would judge things differently. But those same problems exist when we come up with and judge criticisms.
I don't think either program solves those problems, and I don't think it needs to. That's the part people do.
Proposal for new rule
TL;DR: repeat irrationality (as defined below) should be a bannable offense.
Since Popper seemed so agreeable, I mentioned that one of his former students had accused him of not tolerating criticism of his own ideas. Popper's eyes blazed. “It is completely untrue! I was happy when I got criticism! Of course, not when I would answer the criticism… and the person would still go on with it. That is the thing which I found uninteresting and would not tolerate.” In that case, Popper would throw the student out of his class.
… so long as the proponents of our best theories … have to expend their intellectual energies in futile refutation and re-refutation of theories long known to be false, the state of our deepest knowledge cannot improve.
Our forum rules (#4460) include a rule against “Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress…” In light of recent, mostly off-platform discussions, I’m thinking about extending it. Or maybe it already applies to the behavior I’m about to describe.
Veritula is built to help people seek truth by criticizing ideas and addressing criticism. More generally, it’s meant to help people live a life guided by reason (#2844) and make progress. That includes the rejection of ideas with pending criticisms.
One of the core insights of Veritula is that people should not rely on memory to decide whether to adopt an idea (#4471). They shouldn’t rely on memory to recall the outcome of a discussion. They shouldn’t track the outcome of a discussion manually (unless they’ve practiced that skill extensively). They should instead feed ideas into Veritula, put them in the proper relationship with each other, and then simply look up which ideas they should adopt or reject. Or, if the discussion has already happened, then they should simply look up its current state instead of duplicating it. (The list of discussions and search function should help with that.) Any idea with a red label showing a count of pending criticisms should be abandoned; any idea without that label should be adopted.
This way, people can avoid having the same discussions over and over again. But some people aren’t willing to do the required work even once and change their mind. They’d rather repeat the same discussions, and repeatedly advocate the same mistaken ideas, like those Easter Islanders who kept building hideous statues with no purpose.
I think members on Veritula should be expected to follow through and update their stances when they’re shown to be wrong. After all, Veritula offers them a way to tell objectively that they’re wrong. We have a criterion of rationality, so why not use it? And if they can’t remember what their updated stance should be, they should get in the habit of simply looking it up. If their old stance has pending criticisms, they should stop advocating it.
But people conveniently ‘forget’ discussion outcomes they view as unfavorable, let a few months pass (at which point they think nobody could reasonably blame them for forgetting), and then go right back to advocating a stance that’s already known to be false.
Mistakes happen; again, memory isn’t perfect. Or sometimes we have a nagging feeling that something about the outcome of a discussion just isn’t quite right, but we can’t put our finger on it. In such a situation, when asked about one’s stance, it’s rational to say something like: ‘Although I personally disagree, at the current state of the discussion, idea X (link to the idea on V) is (or is not) rationally adoptable.’
A good example of how to do this right in a similar situation is @dirk-meulenbelt’s recent post on X:
I wrote a proof/argument on my blog that the challenge is impossible for "two strings" alone, though Dennis has [since] clarified that it's OK to have more than just two strings, and a person may be prompted within reason.
The specific content isn’t important here. What matters is that Dirk shared an objection and then immediately explained why it wasn’t valid anymore. That’s honest. It’s unlike so many dishonest interlocutors who would only mention the objection but not that it’s been addressed already.
As I’ve written before:
The catalog of ideas can be vast – much too big for any one man to hold in his mind. Memory is error-prone. We should not rely on memory to see which ideas we should adopt or reject. We should look them up, dispassionately, in the database [on Veritula], the way a judge would look up a law in a legal text. Rationality is an impersonal thing. Advocacy and rejection of ideas is impersonal as well.
A judge preparing a verdict may personally disagree with a law. For example, he may think it’s too strict or not strict enough. In his ruling, he may even personally distance himself from a specific law. But that doesn’t mean he can just ignore it and act on whim instead.
Yet that is essentially how people treat the advocacy and rejection of ideas more generally. They do it based on whim. If such people participate on Veritula long-term, they will duplicate ideas or even entire discussions. But maintaining discussion trees is no simple task; it takes care and effort. If there are no consequences for such people, one would have to refute and re-refute ideas long known to be false. And that’s time we could spend advocating and improving ideas not known to be false. In short, such people sabotage progress.
Therefore, I suggest that members who are repeatedly found to advocate ideas with pending criticisms, or to reject ideas without pending criticisms, or to have duplicate discussions due to undue reversals to previous, mistaken stances – in short, members who act irrationally in this way, on or off-platform, when they should know better – be given warnings.
If it happens once, it’s no big deal. If it happens twice, it may warrant a warning. Mods should reference both the offending statement and presumed match so the presumed offender can explain any discrepancy. If positive, they may also be asked to explain how they plan to avoid this outcome in the future (eg see #5176). They could run a bounty that will charge their card a small but non-negligible amount if they don’t address a criticism. If it happens a third time, especially if it’s about the same topic as before, their account may be temporarily locked or banned permanently. More leeway can be given if a lot of time passes between offenses or due to other extenuating circumstances, case by case.
Non-members who wish to join Veritula, but who’ve been found to act irrationally in this way off-platform, will need to make a convincing case that they want to improve. Evidence that they’ve changed their mind on some issue, eg some written public record of that change, including some evidence that they remember that change over time, would be a good start.
This rule wouldn’t be retroactive for bans, but once effective, past ‘offenders’ may be warned if their behavior is expected to continue. Past warnings will count toward the decision for future bans.
I want people who take ideas, reason, and progress seriously. Others can go goof off on other platforms, there’s plenty of those around. People who take reason seriously need a way to protect their time against people who don’t.
How Does Veritula Work?
Veritula (Latin for ‘a bit of truth’) can help you live a life guided exclusively by reason.
To reason, within any well-defined epistemology, means to follow and apply that epistemology. Unreason, or whim, is an undue departure from it. Epistemology is the study of knowledge – basically, the study of what helps knowledge grow, what hinders its growth, and related questions.
Veritula follows, and helps you apply, Karl Popper’s epistemology, Critical Rationalism. It’s a continuation of the Athenian tradition of criticism and the only known epistemology without major flaws.1
Critical Rationalism says that ideas are assumed true until refuted. This approach leaves us free to make bold guesses and use the full arsenal at our disposal to criticize these guesses in order to solve problems, correct errors, and seek truth. It’s a creative and critical approach. Critical Rationalism is a fallibilist philosophy: there is no criterion of truth to determine with certainty whether some idea is true or false. We all make mistakes, and by an effort, we can correct them to get a little closer to the truth. Rejecting all forms of mysticism and the supernatural, Veritula recognizes that progress is both possible and desirable, and that rational means are the only way to make ongoing progress.
Veritula is a programmatic implementation of Popper’s epistemology.
Veritula provides an objective, partly automated way to tentatively determine whether a given idea is problematic. It does not tell you what to think – it teaches you how to think.
On Veritula, ideas are discrete and immutable. Consider an idea I:
I
Since it has no criticisms, we tentatively consider I unproblematic. It is rational to adopt it and act in accordance with it. Conversely, it would be irrational to reject it, consider it problematic, or act counter to it. (See #2281 for more details on rational decision-making.)
Next, someone submits a criticism C1:
I|C1
The idea I is now considered problematic so long as criticism C1 is not addressed. How do you address it? You can revise I so that C1 doesn’t apply anymore, which restores the previous state with just the standalone I (now called I2 to indicate the revision):
ReviseI ------------> I2|C1
To track changes, Veritula offers beautiful diffing and version control for ideas.
If you cannot think of a way to revise I, you can counter-criticize C1, thereby neutralizing it with a new criticism, C2:
I|C1|C2
Now, I is considered unproblematic again, since C1 is problematic and thus can’t be a decisive criticism anymore.
If you can think of neither a revision of I nor counter-criticism to C1, your only option is to accept that I has been (tentatively) defeated. You should therefore abandon it, which means: stop acting in accordance with it, considering it to be unproblematic, etc.
Since there can be many criticisms (which are also just ideas) and deeply nested counter-criticisms, the result is a tree structure. For example, as a discussion progresses, one of its trees might look like this:
I/ | \C11 C12 C13/ \ \C21 C22 C23/ \C31 C32
In this tree, I is considered problematic. Although C11 has been neutralized by C21 and C22, C12 still needs to be addressed. In addition, C23 would have neutralized C13, but C31 and C32 make C23 problematic, so C13 makes I problematic as well.
You don’t need to keep track of these relationships manually. Veritula automatically marks ideas accordingly.
Since decision-making follows the same logic as truth-seeking, you can use these trees to make decisions, too. Veritula implements unanimous consent as defined by Taking Children Seriously, a parenting philosophy that builds on Popper’s epistemology. When you’re planning your next move but can’t decide on a city, say, Veritula helps you criticize your ideas and make a rational decision – meaning a decision you’ll be happy with. Again, it’s rational to act in accordance with ideas that have no pending criticisms.
All ideas, including criticisms, should be formulated as concisely as possible, and separate ideas should be submitted separately, even if they’re related. Otherwise, you run the risk of receiving ‘bulk’ criticisms, where a single criticism seems to apply to more content than it actually does.
Again, criticisms are also just ideas, so the same is true for criticisms. Submitting each criticism separately has the benefit of requiring the proponent of an idea to address each criticism individually, not in bulk. If he fails to address even a single criticism, the idea remains problematic and should be rejected.
The more you discuss a given topic, the deeper and wider the tree grows. Some criticisms can apply to multiple ideas in the tree, but that needs to be made explicit by submitting them repeatedly.
Comments that aren’t criticisms – eg follow-up questions or otherwise neutral comments – are considered ancillary ideas. Unlike criticisms, ancillary ideas do not invert their respective parents’ statuses. They are neutral.
One of the main benefits of Veritula is that the status of any idea in a discussion can be seen at a glance. If you are new to a much-discussed topic, adopt the displayed status of the ideas involved: if they are marked problematic, reject them; if they are not, adopt them.
Therefore, Veritula acts as a dictionary for ideas.
One of the problems of our age is that people have same discussions over and over again. Part of the reason is widespread irrationality, expressed in the unwillingness to change one’s mind; another is that it’s simply difficult to remember or know what’s true and what isn’t. Discussion trees can get complex, so people shouldn’t blindly trust their judgment of whether some idea is true or problematic, whether nested criticisms have been neutralized or not. Going off of memory is too error prone.
Veritula solves this problem: it makes discussion trees explicit so you don’t have to remember each idea and its relation to other ideas. Veritula therefore also enables you to hold irrational people accountable: if an idea has pending criticisms, the rational approach is to either abandon it or to save it by revising it or addressing all pending criticisms.
Many people don’t like to concede an argument. But with Veritula, no concessions are necessary. The site just shows you who’s right.
Using Veritula, we may discover a bit of truth.
Still have questions about rationality? Read the technical paper, learn about Veritula’s recursive epistemology and how to structure discussions, or read the quick guide to rational decision-making.
Want personalized help tailored to your own specific needs? Hire Dennis, founder of Veritula, for personal tutoring, or run a bounty.
Popperian epistemology has some flaws, like verisimilitude, but Veritula doesn’t implement those.
The rule is meant to address blatant disregard for rationality. If someone honestly tries to be rational but fails, the rule doesn’t apply.
That’s already covered by the recommendation to separate one’s personal stance from what can be objectively & rationally advocated: “‘Although I personally disagree, at the current state of the discussion, idea X (link to the idea on V) is (or is not) rationally adoptable.’” That can be changed slightly to: ‘Although I’m not yet able to do it fully myself, at the current state of the discussion, idea X should be adopted.’
What about people who want to learn about V and rationality but whose life is currently half reason half unreason? Like religious people, for example. They can’t just switch over all at once. It takes time and practice, and even then they may fail. I’m not 100% rational all the time either. Should I be banned from V?
A valuable contributor might advocate elsewhere an idea that has pending criticisms on Veritula, without affecting Veritula or its members.
Irrationally spreading ideas affects everyone. Culture can’t be neatly contained like that. I think that’s one of the reasons Deutsch and Popper voiced their frustrations. And I want members of V to be known for not spreading ideas irrationally. I want them to have a reputation for (fallibly) acting rationally. (I add the proviso ‘fallibly’ to appreciate that members may sometimes struggle to act rationally, but as long as they make an honest try, they’re fine in my book.)
A valuable contributor might advocate elsewhere an idea that has pending criticisms on Veritula, without affecting Veritula or its members.
If they’re valuable, mods can take that into account when making a decision. Since multiple warnings would be given first, it’s not like we’d suddenly lose valuable members left and right.
Proposal for new rule
TL;DR: repeat irrationality (as defined below) should be a bannable offense.
Since Popper seemed so agreeable, I mentioned that one of his former students had accused him of not tolerating criticism of his own ideas. Popper's eyes blazed. “It is completely untrue! I was happy when I got criticism! Of course, not when I would answer the criticism… and the person would still go on with it. That is the thing which I found uninteresting and would not tolerate.” In that case, Popper would throw the student out of his class.
… so long as the proponents of our best theories … have to expend their intellectual energies in futile refutation and re-refutation of theories long known to be false, the state of our deepest knowledge cannot improve.
Our forum rules (#4460) include a rule against “Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress…” In light of recent, mostly off-platform discussions, I’m thinking about extending it. Or maybe it already applies to the behavior I’m about to describe.
Veritula is built to help people seek truth by criticizing ideas and addressing criticism. More generally, it’s meant to help people live a life guided by reason (#2844) and make progress. That includes the rejection of ideas with pending criticisms.
One of the core insights of Veritula is that people should not rely on memory to decide whether to adopt an idea (#4471). They shouldn’t rely on memory to recall the outcome of a discussion. They shouldn’t track the outcome of a discussion manually (unless they’ve practiced that skill extensively). They should instead feed ideas into Veritula, put them in the proper relationship with each other, and then simply look up which ideas they should adopt or reject. Or, if the discussion has already happened, then they should simply look up its current state instead of duplicating it. (The list of discussions and search function should help with that.) Any idea with a red label showing a count of pending criticisms should be abandoned; any idea without that label should be adopted.
This way, people can avoid having the same discussions over and over again. But some people aren’t willing to do the required work even once and change their mind. They’d rather repeat the same discussions, and repeatedly advocate the same mistaken ideas, like those Easter Islanders who kept building hideous statues with no purpose.
I think members on Veritula should be expected to follow through and update their stances when they’re shown to be wrong. After all, Veritula offers them a way to tell objectively that they’re wrong. We have a criterion of rationality, so why not use it? And if they can’t remember what their updated stance should be, they should get in the habit of simply looking it up. If their old stance has pending criticisms, they should stop advocating it.
But people conveniently ‘forget’ discussion outcomes they view as unfavorable, let a few months pass (at which point they think nobody could reasonably blame them for forgetting), and then go right back to advocating a stance that’s already known to be false.
Mistakes happen; again, memory isn’t perfect. Or sometimes we have a nagging feeling that something about the outcome of a discussion just isn’t quite right, but we can’t put our finger on it. In such a situation, when asked about one’s stance, it’s rational to say something like: ‘Although I personally disagree, at the current state of the discussion, idea X (link to the idea on V) is (or is not) rationally adoptable.’
A good example of how to do this right in a similar situation is @dirk-meulenbelt’s recent post on X:
I wrote a proof/argument on my blog that the challenge is impossible for "two strings" alone, though Dennis has [since] clarified that it's OK to have more than just two strings, and a person may be prompted within reason.
The specific content isn’t important here. What matters is that Dirk shared an objection and then immediately explained why it wasn’t valid anymore. That’s honest. It’s unlike so many dishonest interlocutors who would only mention the objection but not that it’s been addressed already.
As I’ve written before:
The catalog of ideas can be vast – much too big for any one man to hold in his mind. Memory is error-prone. We should not rely on memory to see which ideas we should adopt or reject. We should look them up, dispassionately, in the database [on Veritula], the way a judge would look up a law in a legal text. Rationality is an impersonal thing. Advocacy and rejection of ideas is impersonal as well.
A judge preparing a verdict may personally disagree with a law. For example, he may think it’s too strict or not strict enough. In his ruling, he may even personally distance himself from a specific law. But that doesn’t mean he can just ignore it and act on whim instead.
Yet that is essentially how people treat the advocacy and rejection of ideas more generally. They do it based on whim. If such people participate on Veritula long-term, they will duplicate ideas or even entire discussions. But maintaining discussion trees is no simple task; it takes care and effort. If there are no consequences for such people, one would have to refute and re-refute ideas long known to be false. And that’s time we could spend advocating and improving ideas not known to be false. In short, such people sabotage progress.
Therefore, I suggest that members who are repeatedly found to advocate ideas with pending criticisms, or reject ideas without pending criticisms, or to have duplicate discussions due to undue reversals to previous, mistaken stances – in short, members who act irrationally in this way, on or off-platform, when they should know better – be given warnings. If it happens once, it’s no big deal. If it happens twice, it may warrant a warning. Members may be asked to explain how they plan to avoid this outcome in the future (eg see #5176). They could run a bounty that will charge their card a small but non-negligible amount if they don’t address a criticism. If it happens a third time, especially if it’s about the same topic as before, their account may be temporarily locked or banned permanently. More leeway can be given if a lot of time passes between offenses or due to other extenuating circumstances, case by case.
Non-members who wish to join Veritula, but who’ve been found to act irrationally in this way off-platform, will need to make a convincing case that they want to improve. Evidence that they’ve changed their mind on some issue, eg some written public record of that change, including some evidence that they remember that change over time, would be a good start.
This rule wouldn’t be retroactive for bans, but once effective, past ‘offenders’ may be warned if their behavior is expected to continue. Past warnings will count toward the decision for future bans.
I want people who take ideas, reason, and progress seriously. Others can go goof off on other platforms, there’s plenty of those around. People who take reason seriously need a way to protect their time against people who don’t.
Forum Rules
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 by criticizing this idea before issues arise. Changes are generally not retroactive unless specified otherwise.
Site-wide terms apply as well.
The rules aren’t clear about whether changes can apply retroactively.
If actual notice is the intended threshold, should an occurrence count only after the person has been shown the particular idea and its pending criticism?
I think that’s included (#5508), but it’s probably better in any case to refer to some standard of reasonableness: given the user’s and the mod’s actions, would an otherwise reasonable person agree that the user should have acted differently.
There’s a risk in being more specific about these conditions because it encourages trolls and other bad actors to look for loopholes. Whereas a standard of reasonableness encourages people to be good actors instead.
The proposal itself only says “when they should know better”.
It doesn’t only say that. It also says “If it happens twice, it may warrant a warning.” Meaning by that time, a mod will have talked to them. And: “They could run a bounty that will charge their card a small but non-negligible amount if they don’t address a criticism.” They wouldn’t know to run a bounty unless a mod told them to.
What must someone have been told and understood before they count as someone who “should know better”?
I don’t know if this can be fully defined ahead of time. Someone new to V would naturally be given more leeway. Over time, if they need to be told again and again but make no or little progress, and if they conveniently keep forgetting how V works to save their pet ideas, then it wouldn’t be unreasonable for a mod to conclude they’re not all that interested in rationality. I don’t know if the specific circumstances under which that might happen can be predicted.
But as a hypothetical example: a member of V is pointed repeatedly to the state of the discussion around HTV, say. Then they go on X to talk about how great HTV is. When asked about this, they ‘forgot’ HTV had pending criticisms. They promise to look into it. But they ‘forget’ again and the same behavior repeats. That’s basically lying at that point.