Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024
Activity
The red ‘Criticized’ label could be clickable and lead to a filtered version of ideas#show.
The red ‘Criticized’ label could be a link leading to a filtered version of ideas#show.
#1865·Dennis HackethalOP, about 2 months agoThe red ‘Criticized’ label shows how many outstanding criticisms an idea has. For example ‘Criticized (5)’ means the idea has five outstanding criticisms.
But if there are lots of comments, including non-criticisms and addressed criticisms, it’s hard to identify outstanding criticisms.
There should be an easy way to filter comments of a given idea down to only outstanding criticisms.
The red ‘Criticized’ label could be clickable and lead to a filtered version of ideas#show.
The red ‘Criticized’ label shows how many outstanding criticisms an idea has. For example ‘Criticized (5)’ means the idea has five outstanding criticisms.
But if there are lots of comments, including non-criticisms and addressed criticisms, it’s hard to identify outstanding criticisms.
There should be an easy way to filter comments of a given idea down to only outstanding criticisms.
#1630·Edwin de WitOP, 3 months agoSynonymous indeed. In a previous video I labeled Deutsch's terms to make them easier to discuss and get a better sense for. You're correct that the specific mapping I use is:
Statements = explicit knowledge
Intuitions = inexplicit knowledge
Drives = unconscious knowledge
In light of (at the time of writing) three outstanding criticisms of your new terminology (#1630), what do you plan to do, if anything?
Some ideas: if you disagree with the criticisms, we could discuss further; if you agree, we could come up with ways to correct the error, like (just spitballing here) revising your terminology going forward or posting disclaimers on previous publications.
Either way, it would be good to reach some sort of conclusion.
#1861·Dennis HackethalOP, about 2 months agoWe don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in its own.
It’s true that each criticism should be submitted separately, but that’s not related to bulk criticism in the way you seem to be suggesting.
Imagine a post containing multiple ideas. Then a single criticism of that post will make it look as though all of the ideas in that post are problematic. If the criticism actually only applies to a subset of the ideas, that’s bulk criticism.
For example, somebody submits a post saying: ‘I love Batman. I love Spider-Man.’ Then somebody else criticizes the post by saying ‘Batman sucks because <some reasoning>.’ Now it looks like Spider-Man has received criticism, too, even though the criticism only applies to Batman.
See if you want to change the quoted passage to: ‘We submit only one idea at a time. Same for criticisms.’
I’ve now submitted three criticisms at once. Recall that addressing them requires two steps: changing your idea and deselecting the criticisms your change addresses.
You can address all three criticisms in the same revision, as I believe you’ve done before. Or you can divvy it up. That’s up to you.
Addressing criticisms and not being easily overwhelmed when you receive multiple criticisms at once are both crucial aspects of rationality. You’re on the right track.
#1858·Zelalem Mekonnen revised about 2 months agoIf I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in its own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in its own.
It’s true that each criticism should be submitted separately, but that’s not related to bulk criticism in the way you seem to be suggesting.
Imagine a post containing multiple ideas. Then a single criticism of that post will make it look as though all of the ideas in that post are problematic. If the criticism actually only applies to a subset of the ideas, that’s bulk criticism.
For example, somebody submits a post saying: ‘I love Batman. I love Spider-Man.’ Then somebody else criticizes the post by saying ‘Batman sucks because <some reasoning>.’ Now it looks like Spider-Man has received criticism, too, even though the criticism only applies to Batman.
See if you want to change the quoted passage to: ‘We submit only one idea at a time. Same for criticisms.’
#1858·Zelalem Mekonnen revised about 2 months agoIf I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in its own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
Each criticism, even if they are related must be in its own.
Typo: “in its own” should be ‘on its own’.
#1858·Zelalem Mekonnen revised about 2 months agoIf I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in its own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
Well done. Now let’s practice addressing multiple criticisms at once. Here’s the first one:
[W]e first start with an idea/conjecture.
It need not be a conjecture. It could be a conclusion of some other train of thought, say. I recommend changing it from “idea/conjecture” to just ‘idea’.
#1854·Zelalem Mekonnen revised about 2 months agoIf I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
Making progress. Just a minor quibble next, but worth practicing with:
Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own.
There’s a typo: “it's” should be ‘its’ (no apostrophe).
See if you can revise your idea to address this criticism. Remember, there are two steps: changing the spelling and deselecting this criticism.
#1851·Zelalem Mekonnen revised about 2 months agoIf I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
I see that you’ve revised your idea, but you forgot to deselect the criticism (#1848) your revision addresses. As I wrote in that criticism (emphasis added):
Click ‘Revise’, change ‘avoid duplicate criticism’ to ‘avoid duplicate ideas’, deselect this criticism underneath the form, then hit submit.
But #1848 is still being rendered as a criticism of your revision, and your revision has the red label that says ‘Criticized (1)’ as a result.
When a revision addresses a criticism, you don’t want it to continue being marked as criticized by that criticism. That’s why the revision form lists criticisms, so you can uncheck the ones your revision addresses.
Try revising #1851 and remember to uncheck idea #1848 underneath the revision form. Uncheck this criticism (the one I am writing now) as well.
Once you’ve submitted the revision form, verify that #1848 is not being shown underneath the new revision.
#1849·Zelalem Mekonnen, about 2 months agoWhat of for "Supersedes previous version?" box? Would that be selected, since the new version would supersede the current version.
Checking that box is useful when you want a revision to override the original.
If you check it, Veritula automatically posts a criticism of the original idea on your behalf. This way, if the original idea is a criticism, it gets ‘neutralized’, which is usually what you want when you revise a criticism.
Consider what would happen if you didn’t neutralize an old criticism: then the parent idea would show two pending criticisms.
#1833 (your idea) isn’t a criticism. Even if it were, it’s already been criticized (#1848). So checking the box isn’t strictly necessary. But feel free to check it and see what happens.
#1833·Zelalem Mekonnen, about 2 months agoIf I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own. Also, avoid duplicate criticism.
Decent start with some room for improvement. Let’s learn Veritula by doing. I’ll submit criticisms of your idea one by one and you can practice Veritula by addressing them. Here’s the first one:
Also, avoid duplicate criticism.
Yes, but we should avoid duplicate ideas in general.
Try revising #1833 to address this criticism. Click ‘Revise’, change ‘avoid duplicate criticism’ to ‘avoid duplicate ideas’, deselect this criticism underneath the form, then hit submit.
Make sure that at each step you understand why you’re performing that step. Ask first if you don’t.
#1845·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 2 months agoThere should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G /|\ P1 P2 P3 \|/ IThis feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
For parent ideas, cycle only through revisions that lead to the target idea. Communicate accordingly in the UI. For the target idea, its children, and any of its siblings’ children, cycle through all revisions.
Every idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread. This could just be ideas#show. That page should also scroll the target idea into view in case its preceded by too much context that would otherwise push it below the viewport.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
Implemented as of 632c0d7.
There should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G
/|\
P1 P2 P3
\|/
I
This feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
For parent ideas, cycle only through revisions that lead to the target idea. Communicate accordingly in the UI. For the target idea, its children, and any of its siblings’ children, cycle through all revisions.
Every idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread. This could just be ideas#show.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
There should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G
/|\
P1 P2 P3
\|/
I
This feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
For parent ideas, cycle only through revisions that lead to the target idea. Communicate accordingly in the UI. For the target idea, its children, and any of its siblings’ children, cycle through all revisions.
Every idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread. This could just be ideas#show. That page should also scroll the target idea into view in case its preceded by too much context that would otherwise push it below the viewport.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
#1841·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 2 months agoThere should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G /|\ P1 P2 P3 \|/ IThis feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
For parent ideas, cycle only through revisions that lead to the target idea. Communicate accordingly in the UI. For the target idea, its children, and any of its siblings’ children, cycle through all revisions.
Every idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread. This could just be ideas#show.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
The target idea should be scrolled into view. Otherwise, it might not always be visible, which could cause confusion. See eg #1811, which is preceded by a long idea and thus not visible on page load at the time of writing.
#1841·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 2 months agoThere should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G /|\ P1 P2 P3 \|/ IThis feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
For parent ideas, cycle only through revisions that lead to the target idea. Communicate accordingly in the UI. For the target idea, its children, and any of its siblings’ children, cycle through all revisions.
Every idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread. This could just be ideas#show.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
Implemented as of 55d02a7.
There should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G
/|\
P1 P2 P3
\|/
I
This feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.
Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
There should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G
/|\
P1 P2 P3
\|/
I
This feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
For parent ideas, cycle only through revisions that lead to the target idea. Communicate accordingly in the UI. For the target idea, its children, and any of its siblings’ children, cycle through all revisions.
Every idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread. This could just be ideas#show.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
#1837·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 2 months agoThere should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G /|\ P1 P2 P3 \|/ IThis feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.
Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.
Might as well go with top-level ideas, too. That way, when there are other top-level ideas, they get filtered out. Good for zeroing in.
#1837·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 2 months agoThere should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G /|\ P1 P2 P3 \|/ IThis feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.
Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.
During testing, I realized this behavior is more confusing than I had initially thought.
There should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G
/|\
P1 P2 P3
\|/
I
Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.
Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
There should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G
/|\
P1 P2 P3
\|/
I
This feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.
Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
There should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G
/|\
P1 P2 P3
\|/
I
Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.
Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
#1819·Zelalem MekonnenOP, about 2 months agoThis has to take time into context. At one point, a belief in god was all that we had. We didn't have hard to vary explanations. As such, a person might have a belief in god as the only worldview currently. So it isn't irrational for that person, or people back in the days, to believe in god.
Irrationality may be all people had back in the day but that doesn’t make it rational.
This counter-criticism isn’t an invitation to continue this discussion at this point. See #1821.
#1818·Zelalem MekonnenOP, about 2 months agoDreams can be a source of knowledge. But dreams aren't always reasonable. Sometimes, dreams are lies.
In that statement, I am looking at reason as a mode of criticism. You might get ideas and potentially knowledge from all sources and reason tests weather they are right or not.
And if I understand you right, what you're saying is if an idea isn't from 'reason' than how can we criticize it using reason. But we can and do all the time. Religion is irrational, but we criticize it and take what is good from it and discard the rest.
See #1821.
#1820·Zelalem MekonnenOP, about 2 months agoSay someone said "I had a dream that {insert something true}" or "god told me that {insert something true}," what is the source of knowledge here?
That doesn’t belong here because you didn’t actually comment on my thoughts re circularity (I’m not requesting to do so now). You either did not read ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ or you did not understand it. You need to post ideas in the appropriate place. Discussions on Veritula shouldn’t be treated like linear chats.
Don’t post another idea in this discussion (the one titled ‘Reason Not The Only Source of Knowledge’) until you understand how Veritula works. If you think you understand how it works, post a summary of your understanding as a new top-level idea using the form located at the bottom of ‘How Does Veritula Work?’. I can then criticize your summary to help improve your understanding.
You can also study Edwin’s activity for examples of how to do Veritula well. He’s fairly new to it but learned it quickly.
Don’t let this discourage you. Veritula has a learning curve. It takes some upfront investment but it’s worth it.
Use title case to be consistent with other top-level ideas in this discussion
What does “battle tested” mean?
One of @edwin-de-wit’s ideas recently got the blue label that says “battle tested” – well done, Edwin! – so he asked me what it means.
It means that the idea has at least three criticisms, all of which have been addressed.
The label is awarded automatically. It’s a tentative indicator of quality. Battle-tested ideas generally contain more knowledge than non-battle-tested ones.
When there are two conflicting ideas, each with no outstanding criticisms, go with the (more) battle-tested one. This methodology maps onto Popper’s notion of a critical preference.
The label is not an indicator of an idea’s future success, nor should it be considered a justification of an idea.
You can see all battle-tested ideas currently on Veritula on this page. Those are all the best, most knowledge-dense ideas on this site.
What Does “Battle Tested” Mean?
One of @edwin-de-wit’s ideas recently got the blue label that says “battle tested” – well done, Edwin! – so he asked me what it means.
It means that the idea has at least three criticisms, all of which have been addressed.
The label is awarded automatically. It’s a tentative indicator of quality. Battle-tested ideas generally contain more knowledge than non-battle-tested ones.
When there are two conflicting ideas, each with no outstanding criticisms, go with the (more) battle-tested one. This methodology maps onto Popper’s notion of a critical preference.
The label is not an indicator of an idea’s future success, nor should it be considered a justification of an idea.
You can see all battle-tested ideas currently on Veritula on this page. Those are all the best, most knowledge-dense ideas on this site.