Search Ideas
915 ideas match your query.:
feelings and other nonrational mental contents
Feelings aren’t “nonrational” per se. There’s a rational place for feelings. See #3632: I mean no disrespect when I say this but I think you don’t yet understand the notion of rationality I use.
It sounds like you have a different conception of knowledge and rationality from Popper’s/Deutsch’s.
Rationality means finding common preferences among ideas. Why should that not be possible for the types of knowledge you mention?
perspectively knowledge
I’m not sure that’s what you meant to write. Adverbs don’t go in front of nouns.
I think your challenge asks for the wrong kind of thing. Deutsch’s “hard to vary” is a guideline for criticizing explanations, not a step by step decision algorithm. In this paper he says scientific methodology does not prescribe exact procedures, and that “better” explanations are not always totally rankable in a clean, mechanical way. “Hard to vary” mainly means avoiding explanations that can be tweaked to fit anything, because then they explain nothing, so the lack of a universal scoring program does not refute the idea.
THE LOGIC OF EXPERIMENTAL TESTS, PARTICULARLY OF EVERETTIAN QUANTUM THEORY
https://www.constructortheory.org/portfolio/logic-experimental-tests/
From the paper (p. 3):
An explanation is better the more it is constrained by the explicanda and by other good explanations,5 but we shall not need precise criteria here; we shall only need the following: that an explanation is bad (or worse than a rival or variant explanation) to the extent that…
(i) it seems not to account for its explicanda; or
(ii) it seems to conflict with explanations that are otherwise good; or
(iii) it could easily be adapted to account for anything (so it explains nothing).
Accurate translation can be very difficult though.
But is not Tarski's notion of truth a relative notion? Is it not relative to the language to which the statement whose truth is being discussed belongs?
Fallibilism refutes the relativism on which the myth rests because fallibilism provides an absolute standard:
[T]here exists a very different attitude towards absolute truth, in fact a fallibilist attitude. It stresses the fact that the mistakes we make can be absolute mistakes, in the sense that our theories can be absolutely false – that they can fall short of the truth. Thus to the fallibilist the notion of truth, and that of falling short of the truth, may represent absolute standards – even though we can never be certain that we are living up to them. But since they may serve as a kind of steering compass, they may be of decisive help in critical discussions.
The myth stems from a “disappointed over-optimism concerning the powers of reason …”. (P. 44)
People think truth should win decisively. But discussions usually don’t lead to such a decisive victory (see #3568). So then people become pessimistic about the fruitfulness of discussions.
Science, a tradition of criticism, is unlike previous traditions, whose “Their function is, and has always been, to preserve the purity of the teaching of the founder of the school.” (P. 43)
Historically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
Such clashes led Xenophanes draw important epistemological conclusions about truth and guesswork (p. 39).
Historically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
Such clashes led Xenophanes draw important epistemological conclusions about truth and guesswork.
Historically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
The myth Popper criticizes, in one sentence:
A rational and fruitful discussion is impossible unless the participants share a common framework of basic assumptions or, at least, unless they have agreed on such a framework for the purpose of the discussion.
By ‘framework’, Popper means an intellectual framework (as opposed to, say, certain attitudes like a desire to find truth).
Isn't every theory infinitely underspecified ?
No.
Bounties are epistemologically relevant.
Let’s say you post a high bounty for some idea and your terms are reasonable. If there are no pending criticisms when the bounty ends, maybe that’s because it’s a good idea.
Scientists, philosophers, anyone who’s serious about ideas, should run bounties.
[P]eople with set preferences for less self are more like communist societies. That's a kind of coerced decentralisation.
Aren’t communist societies totalitarian and highly centralized?
How Do Bounties Work?
Bounties let you invite criticism and reward high-quality contributions with real money.
Starting December 23, 2025, select users can run bounties. Anyone can participate.
Bounties are in beta. Expect things to break.
How do I participate?
Next, browse the list of bounties. Click a bounty’s dollar amount to view its page, review the bountied idea and the terms, and submit a criticism on that idea.
That’s it – you’re in.
How do I get paid?
Each bounty enters a review period roughly five days after it starts (the exact date is shown on the bounty page). The review period lasts 24 hours. During this time, the bounty owner reviews submissions and rejects only those that don’t meet the stated terms.
To be eligible for a payout, all of the following must be true:
- Your submission is a direct criticism of the bountied idea.
- Your submission has no pending counter-criticisms when the review period begins.
- Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
- You have a connected Stripe account in good standing before the review period begins, and it remains connected through the end of the review period.
The bounty owner is never eligible to receive payouts from their own bounty.
Note that counter-criticisms are not constrained by the bounty-specific terms. Only direct criticisms of the bountied idea are.
How much will I get paid?
The bounty amount is prorated among all eligible submissions.
For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the bounty.
Fractions of cents are not paid out. Amounts below USD 0.50 are not paid out.
How do I run a bounty?
Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near bookmark, archive, etc.).
Set a bounty amount and write clear terms describing the kinds of criticisms you’re willing to pay for. Then enter your credit card details to authorize the amount plus a 5% bounty fee.
Your card is authorized, not charged, when the bounty starts.
The bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. After around five days, a 24-hour review period begins. During this time, review submissions and reject those that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted at the end of the review period and become eligible for payout. Your card is then charged.
If no eligible criticisms are accepted, your card is never charged.
Start a bounty today. Terms apply.
How Do Bounties Work?
Bounties let you invite criticism and reward high-quality contributions with real money.
Starting December 23, 2025, select users can run bounties. Anyone can participate.
Bounties are in beta. Expect things to break.
How do I participate?
Next, browse the list of bounties. Click a bounty’s dollar amount to view its page, review the bountied idea and the terms, and submit a criticism on that idea.
That’s it – you’re in.
How do I get paid?
Each bounty enters a review period roughly five days after it starts (the exact date is shown on the bounty page). The review period lasts 24 hours. During this time, the bounty owner reviews submissions and rejects only those that don’t meet the stated terms.
To be eligible for a payout, all of the following must be true:
- Your submission is a direct criticism of the bountied idea.
- Your submission has no pending criticisms when the review period begins.
- Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
- You have a connected Stripe account in good standing before the review period begins, and it remains connected through the end of the review period.
The bounty owner is never eligible to receive payouts from their own bounty.
How much will I get paid?
The bounty amount is prorated among all eligible submissions.
For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the bounty.
Fractions of cents are not paid out. Amounts below USD 0.50 are not paid out.
How do I run a bounty?
Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near bookmark, archive, etc.).
Set a bounty amount and write clear terms describing the kinds of criticisms you’re willing to pay for. Then enter your credit card details to authorize the amount plus a 5% bounty fee.
Your card is authorized, not charged, when the bounty starts.
The bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. After around five days, a 24-hour review period begins. During this time, review submissions and reject those that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted at the end of the review period and become eligible for payout.
If no eligible criticisms are accepted, your card is never charged.
Start a bounty today. Terms apply.
If … the mind is a decentralized system, does the mind have something like a price system for its different parts to communicate?
But the mind isn’t a decentralized system. It has a central ‘I’ sitting at the top. So it’s more like a company with a CEO than a fully decentralized system.
Original article: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hayek-s-the-use-of-knowledge-in-society-simp
Mirror: https://open.substack.com/pub/hackethal/p/hayeks-the-use-of-knowledge-in-society
Original article: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hayek-s-the-use-of-knowledge-in-society-simp
Mirror: https://hackethal.substack.com/publish/post/182216063
Let’s say somebody starts a bounty with permissive terms, asking for virtually any kind of criticism. They set a high ceiling, hoping for many submissions. $200, say.
If they only end up getting one or two small criticisms, for typos, say, they won’t like having to pay 100 bucks a pop.
In other words, the few criticisms you end up getting may not be worth the ceiling.
Then it’s less clear to contributors how much money they can expect.
Need to address the risk of people submitting arbitrary counter-criticisms just before the deadline to exclude competing criticisms from the bounty.
The grace period for the initiator unfortunately does not address this risk since he may decide not to review problematic criticisms.
Need to address the risk of people submitting arbitrary counter-criticisms just before the deadline to exclude criticisms from the bounty.
The grace period for the initiator unfortunately does not address this risk since he may decide not to review problematic criticisms.