Search Ideas

I started with looking it up, whether to include the ‘s’ in ‘criticism’ to find that it didn’t matter much.

… we wouldn't act in accordance with an idea that has outstanding criticism.

In #1926, I suggested changing it to “we wouldn't act in accordance with an idea that has outstanding criticisms”, plural. You changed it to singular “criticism”.

You presumably typed this passage manually instead of copy/pasting. I believe you previously stated a preference for manual typing so as to better process what you type.

I don’t think you made this change on purpose. I’m guessing it was an error.

If you’re going to type manually, you should double check to make sure it’s exactly the same, eg using cmd + f.

Or you could type it manually, then erase, then paste. Manual typing is error prone. Just copy/paste. Or maybe you did copy/paste but you didn’t include the ‘s’ in the selection. Either way, there are errors for you to correct here.

I’m not marking this a criticism because I think your change it still grammatically correct. I’m pointing out a potential source of future errors.

Can you give an example of a flawed idea you think is true and want to act on?

PS: You forgot to @mention me. Again, if you want me to get notified, check the section that says ‘Replying to’ above the textarea when you write the comment. If it doesn’t list me, @mention me.

Say you have an idea, that you take to be true, but at the same time, you understand that that idea has flaws, you haven't come up with a better idea yet, so you act based on this idea.

I guess that's where figuring that out before acting comes in.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept that idea as true until it is criticized. The idea is considered false until all criticism is resolved. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we wouldn't act in accordance with an idea that has outstanding criticism. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if related, should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept that idea as true until it is criticized. The idea is considered false until all criticism is resolved. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we wouldn't act in accordance with that idea. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if related, should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept that idea as true until it receives criticism. When it has received criticism and until all outstanding criticism is resolved, that idea is seen as false. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we wouldn't act in accordance with that idea. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if related, should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

Done as of ea37007.

Add hover effects to schemed buttons so there’s consistency with the existing hover effects for links.

I tried removing hover effects on links in dev and the user experience suffered as a result.

Especially for smaller links, like the hash links in idea headers, it’s nice getting that visual feedback that you are in fact hovering over the link and your click won’t miss it.

Reverted as of f8ed700.

cc @edwin-de-wit re ‘strong’ vs ‘weak’ criticism

The idea is considered false until all criticism is resolved. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we wouldn't act in accordance with that idea.

To someone unfamiliar with Veritula, this may sound like you’re suggesting not to live according to an idea even after all its criticisms have been resolved.

I recommend changing it to ‘we wouldn't act in accordance with an idea that has outstanding criticisms.’

We accept that idea as true until it receives criticism.

‘until it is criticized’ would be more idiomatic, I think.

Edwin says to either have hover effects for all clickable items or none of them. Buttons currently don’t have hover effects but links do.

I could remove hover effects from links. macOS links in System Settings don’t have a hover effect either. (They don’t even have a pointer cursor but IMO that’s going too far.)

Edwin says to be consistent. Either have hover effects for all clickable items or none of them.

I could remove hover effects from links. macOS links in System Settings don’t have a hover effect either. (They don’t even have a pointer cursor but IMO that’s going too far.)

I went back and forth on this. Native macOS buttons don’t have a hover effect and the human-interface guys at Apple are world class. I’m inclined to defer to their expertise. They know things I don’t.

@edwin-de-wit says buttons should have a hover effect.

Having implemented this, a problem has surfaced: when linking to an old version of an idea, the alert “You’re about to comment on an old version of this idea. Are you sure …” shows. That’s jarring if you didn’t want to comment but merely look at the idea.

It’s a valid criticism, but off-topic here. In both my book and video, I define these labels specifically as types of knowledge—not as trivial utterances or noise. So the label I’m looking for doesn’t need to directly address that concern, since I’ll make it clear upfront that all of them are knowledge types.

Thanks for the reminder! Yes, I agree it’s good to strive for some form of resolution. My current take is that I’m still satisfied with Intuitions and Drives as more accessible labels. But the shortcomings you’ve raised in Statement are severe, and I hope to find a better alternative. Unfortunately, I haven’t had much success on my own. I’ll share my current thoughts here — perhaps we can continue exploring alternatives for Statement if you think that’s worthwhile. If, however, you believe all three labels are a mistake and that it’s irrational for me to pursue them, I of course understand if you’d prefer not to continue the discussion.

Problems with Statement

1) By definition a statement is a verbalized expression, whereas explicit knowledge doesn’t need to be verbalized. It just needs to be verbalizable. Calling it a Statement is confusing, as people might think it must be verbalized, while my point is simply that it can be verbalized.

2) It also carries the figurative meaning of “making a statement” through non-verbal actions (e.g., wearing a certain outfit, defying a social norm), which causes confusion, as you pointed out in #1700.

3) You say that statements don’t necessarily need to contain knowledge (see #1806), but can also be trivial or tautological. While I agree, I don’t see this as a relevant criticism of my labels, since in my book and video I define them as types of knowledge — not as trivial utterances or noise. Therefore, the label I’m looking for doesn’t need to address this criticism, since I’ll clarify beforehand that all are types of knowledge.

Given these problems, I’ve tried to find a more suitable word. The only candidate I’ve found so far is Formulations. It conveys explicitness, but it doesn’t fully address problem 1), since it still carries the connotation of being expressed rather than merely expressible.

Curious to hear your thoughts, as always.

Thanks for the reminder! Yes, I agree it’s good to strive for some form of resolution. My current take is that I’m still satisfied with Intuitions and Drives as more accessible labels. But the shortcomings you’ve raised in Statement are severe, and I hope to find a better alternative. Unfortunately, I haven’t had much success on my own. I’ll share my current thoughts here — perhaps we can continue exploring alternatives for Statement if you think that’s worthwhile. If, however, you believe all three labels are a mistake and that it’s irrational for me to pursue them, I of course understand if you’d prefer not to continue the discussion.

Problems with Statement

1) By definition a statement is a verbalized expression, whereas explicit knowledge doesn’t need to be verbalized. It just needs to be verbalizable. Calling it a Statement is confusing, as people might think it must be verbalized, while my point is simply that it can be verbalized.

2) It also carries the figurative meaning of “making a statement” through non-verbal actions (e.g., wearing a certain outfit, defying a social norm), which causes confusion, as you pointed out in #1700.

3) You say that statements don’t necessarily need to contain knowledge (see #1806), but can also be trivial or tautological. While I agree, I don’t see this as a relevant criticism of my labels, since in my book and video I define them as types of knowledge — not as trivial utterances or noise.

Given these problems, I’ve tried to find a more suitable word. The only candidate I’ve found so far is Formulations. It conveys explicitness, but it doesn’t fully address problem 1), since it still carries the connotation of being expressed rather than merely expressible.

Curious to hear your thoughts, as always.

Interesting. Yes, you’re right that statement is also used figuratively—for example, in the phrase “making a statement”, where it means expressing something without words.

But the more literal definition is a clear expression in words:

Oxford English:

a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing.

Nevertheless, I think your criticism is valid: statement could indeed be misinterpreted in different ways, depending on the context.

I don’t take this personally, and I understand your intention isn’t to attack or belittle. To keep our exchange enjoyable and productive, I’ll make an effort to be more attentive to spelling, terminology, and precision. That said, I’m generally less concerned with exact spelling or perfect terminology, since my focus is usually on parsing the meaning or reasoning behind a theory or criticism. I try to be as charitable as possible in interpreting what someone is trying to say, focusing on the intended idea rather than the precise wording. Still, I recognize that clarity of wording may matter more to others—especially in discussions—so I’ll do my best to be more precise.

I think this is off-topic because my carelessness that caused my typos had no effect on my choice of new terminology. (Derived from your suggestion in #1808)