Activity Feed
I turned it into a criticism per Dennis' prompt
Sure, philosophers and pedants do. But typically people use the word "know" in situations well short of being absolutely sure.
Sure, philosophers and pedants do. But typically people use the word "know" in situations well short of being absolutely sure.
#1602·Dirk Meulenbelt, 4 months agoSure, philosophers and pedants do. But typically people use the word "know" in situations well short of being absolutely sure.
Yeah, you’re right.
I suggest you change your idea (#1602) into a criticism so that it cancels out mine. Just click on “revise”, check the box that says “Is criticism?”, and submit the form.
#1601·Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoWe do in every single way in which we use the term "know".
Don’t people disagree about what ‘know’ means? As in, some think it means they’re justified in their belief, others think they have corrected a sufficient amount of errors, etc…
Sure, philosophers and pedants do. But typically people use the word "know" in situations well short of being absolutely sure.
#1585·Dirk Meulenbelt, 5 months agoWe can't always be wrong, because that implies that correct ideas are not expressible, which makes no sense.
I think there is a sense in which we cannot always be sure that we are right, as there's always some possibility that we are wrong, even if we think we are completely right. And if we are completely right, there is nothing that is "manifest" about that.
Let's say I open my fridge, and there is cheese there, I conclude "I have cheese in my fridge". I may be hallucinating, or wrong about the category of cheese, or it just appears like cheese, or whatever. In that sense I could potentially be wrong. However I find it silly to think that I am infinitely wrong in my assessment of where my food is, all the time. That's like saying that we don't know what happens after we die. We do in every single way in which we use the term "know".
I think this idea that we are always wrong needs a rephrase, such as "we could always consider how we could be wrong", or "there is nothing that justifies our true belief", or "we could and should always criticise", or "nothing exists outside of criticism" (as we picked 1+1 and not 1+2 for some critical reason). The rephrase leaves open the possibility of being right a lot, like about where your food is, because you just found it, while still leaving open the possibility that the cheese you just saw is actually your butter.
We do in every single way in which we use the term "know".
Don’t people disagree about what ‘know’ means? As in, some think it means they’re justified in their belief, others think they have corrected a sufficient amount of errors, etc…
#1581·Edwin de WitOP revised 5 months agoThere isn’t a clear logical or computational method for determining whether one explanation is better than another. However, David Deutsch offers useful criteria for evaluating explanations. He suggests that a good explanation is better than a rival if it explains more — meaning it has fewer errors, fewer loose ends, or a broader explanatory range (i.e., it accounts for more phenomena). I believe Popper also describes a solution to be better if it has less unintended consequences than a rival idea. <my interpretations, not quotes>.
[Deutsch] suggests that a good explanation is better than a rival if it explains more — meaning it has fewer errors, fewer loose ends, or a broader explanatory range (i.e., it accounts for more phenomena). I believe Popper also describes a solution to be better if it has less unintended consequences than a rival idea. <my interpretations, not quotes>.
Citations needed, that disclaimer not withstanding.
We cannot always be wrong. If all our ideas are false, then so is the the idea that all our ideas are false.
#1583·Edwin de WitOP, 5 months agoas things get complex and more detailed, it becomes to know which part you are 100% right about.
I think an important consideration here is that because we have no way to prove something to be 100% (because knowledge is conjectured, not justified), that we should assume it to contain areas of improvement and can never be 100% right. The best we can do is say it's true on the condition of axioms X Y Z and the fact that I cannot think of any further criticisms.
In the future, be sure to ‘neutralize’ a criticism when you revise it by checking the box that says “Supersedes previous version?”. Otherwise both the revision and the outdated version are counted as criticisms. Neutralizing ensures that only the most recent revision is counted as a criticism. See #1597.
You don’t need to do this again for this criticism. My counter-criticism already neutralizes it.
Avoid duplicate criticisms during revisions
When revising a criticism, check the box that says “Supersedes previous version?”. This will automatically ‘neutralize’ the older version to avoid counting a criticism twice.
The comment has since been removed.#1581·Edwin de WitOP revised 5 months agoThere isn’t a clear logical or computational method for determining whether one explanation is better than another. However, David Deutsch offers useful criteria for evaluating explanations. He suggests that a good explanation is better than a rival if it explains more — meaning it has fewer errors, fewer loose ends, or a broader explanatory range (i.e., it accounts for more phenomena). I believe Popper also describes a solution to be better if it has less unintended consequences than a rival idea. <my interpretations, not quotes>.
I’ve made pizza almost every day since the last revision (around 16 pizzas). I’ve gotten pretty good at it.
Ingredients
- Store-bought dough (312g)
- Tomato sauce (90g)
- Mozzarella (part skim, home-shredded, 100g)
- 2g extra virgin olive oil
Then, for garnish:
- Oregano
- Fresh basil leaves
- A dash of salt
Steps
- Preheat oven for 1 hour. Ends up somewhere around 450°F.
- Preheat pizza steel for 30 min on top rack underneath broiler, reaches about 650°F.
- In the meantime, rest dough on counter top until it reaches room temperature.
- Grate cheese and measure tomato sauce.
- Stretch the dough.
- Dust peel with flour.
- Remove excess flour from dough.
- Place dough on peel.
- Add tomato sauce.
- Place dough on steel; still on top rack with the broiler still on.
- Bake for 2 minutes.
- Take out to add oregano and cheese.
- Bake for another minute on top rack; again, the broiler is still on.
- Take out steel and let pizza rest on steel for another minute to make the bottom crispy.
- In the meantime, apply small amount of olive oil to the outer crust and sprinkle salt on outer crust.
- Remove from steel and serve.
I’ve made dozens of pizzas by now. I’ve gotten pretty good at it.
Ingredients
- Store-bought dough (312g)
- Tomato sauce (70g, low sodium)
- Mozzarella (whole milk, fresh, 100g)
- 2g extra virgin olive oil (optional)
- Semolina flour
Then, for garnish:
- Oregano
- Fresh basil leaves
- A dash of salt
Steps
- Preheat oven for 1 hour. Ends up somewhere around 450°F.
- Preheat pizza steel for 30 min on top rack underneath broiler, reaches about 650°F.
- In the meantime, rest dough on counter top until it reaches room temperature.
- Grate cheese and measure tomato sauce.
- Dust counter with semolina flour and stretch the dough.
- Add tomato sauce.
- Place dough on peel.
- Place dough on steel; still on top rack with the broiler still on.
- Bake for 2 minutes.
- Take out to add cheese and oregano.
- Bake for another 1.5 minutes on top rack; again, the broiler is still on. Can turn it off halfway through if the pizza is burning on top but the center of the dough needs more time to bake.
- Optional: take out steel and let pizza rest on steel for another minute to make the bottom crispy.
- Optional: in the meantime, apply small amount of olive oil to the outer crust and sprinkle salt on outer crust. (Kind of overrated, not really worth the extra calories.)
- Remove from steel and serve.
#1575·Dennis HackethalOP revised 5 months agoI’ve made pizza almost every day since the last revision (around 16 pizzas). I’ve gotten pretty good at it.
Ingredients
- Store-bought dough (312g)
- Tomato sauce (90g)
- Mozzarella (part skim, home-shredded, 100g)
- 2g extra virgin olive oil
Then, for garnish:
- Oregano
- Fresh basil leaves
- A dash of salt
Steps
- Preheat oven for 1 hour. Ends up somewhere around 450°F.
- Preheat pizza steel for 30 min on top rack underneath broiler, reaches about 650°F.
- In the meantime, rest dough on counter top until it reaches room temperature.
- Grate cheese and measure tomato sauce.
- Stretch the dough.
- Dust peel with flour.
- Remove excess flour from dough.
- Place dough on peel.
- Add tomato sauce.
- Place dough on steel; still on top rack with the broiler still on.
- Bake for 2 minutes.
- Take out to add oregano and cheese.
- Bake for another minute on top rack; again, the broiler is still on.
- Take out steel and let pizza rest on steel for another minute to make the bottom crispy.
- In the meantime, apply small amount of olive oil to the outer crust and sprinkle salt on outer crust.
- Remove from steel and serve.
Much easier to use semolina flour instead of regular flour. h/t @edwin-de-wit
We can't always be wrong, because that implies that correct ideas are not expressible, which makes no sense.
I think there is a sense in which we cannot always be sure that we are right, as there's always some possibility that we are wrong, even if we think we are completely right. And if we are completely right, there is nothing that is "manifest" about that.
Let's say I open my fridge, and there is cheese there, I conclude "I have cheese in my fridge". I may be hallucinating, or wrong about the category of cheese, or it just appears like cheese, or whatever. In that sense I could potentially be wrong. However I find it silly to think that I am infinitely wrong in my assessment of where my food is, all the time. That's like saying that we don't know what happens after we die. We do in every single way in which we use the term "know".
I think this idea that we are always wrong needs a rephrase, such as "we could always consider how we could be wrong", or "there is nothing that justifies our true belief", or "we could and should always criticise", or "nothing exists outside of criticism" (as we picked 1+1 and not 1+2 for some critical reason). The rephrase leaves open the possibility of being right a lot, like about where your food is, because you just found it, while still leaving open the possibility that the cheese you just saw is actually your butter.
as things get complex and more detailed, it becomes to know which part you are 100% right about.
I think an important consideration here is that because we have no way to prove something to be 100% (because knowledge is conjectured, not justified), that we should assume it to contain areas of improvement and can never be 100% right. The best we can do is say it's true on the condition of axioms X Y Z and the fact that I cannot think of any further criticisms.
as things get complex and more detailed, it becomes to know which part you are 100% right about.
I think an important consideration here is that because we have no way to prove something to be 100% true (because knowledge is conjectured, not justified), that we should assume it to contain areas of improvement and can never be 100% true. The best we can do is say it's true on the condition of axioms X Y Z and the fact that I cannot think of any further criticisms.