Search Ideas

It might be worth stating that the aim of Veritula, in conjunction with the fallibilism philosophy, is that progress is both desirable and attainable, and the way to achieve progress is through rational means. This means an end to mysticism, the supernatural, and all other ideas that have an implicit underlying sentiment that a given thing is beyond our understanding.

The current city J live in. I have outstanding criticisms about it. But J still live here.

The reframing of an idea with criticism being problematic instead of false solves this. Because now I’m not acting based on a false idea but a problematic idea.

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

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. 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 the current 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.

Does the ‘a’ mean I made few but significant changes?

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept that idea as true until it has received criticism. When it has received criticism and until the current 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.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. 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 submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if they are related should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. 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 submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Each idea and criticism, even if they are related must be their its own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

If 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.

If 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.

If 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.

If 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.

Say 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?

This 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.

Dreams 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.

Religion is a form of knowledge, but it is not reasonable. It holds some truths, but it is not reasonable. Knowledge can come from myths, which are not reason.

This misses the point of the post before it. Knowledge starts as myths and contains myths. Reason makes it hard to vary, thus reasonable to take as true until the myths in that theory itself are corrected.

Fire purifies gold, but it isn't gold itself. Reason doesn't need to be the source of knowledge to criticize other sources. The main source of knowledge is myth and things that don't make sense. All of our scientific theories are testable, hard to vary myths. As Popper states in Conjecture and Refutations (171), "[w]e shall understand that, in a certain sense, science is myth-making just as religion is."

Ayn Rand claims that "The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge [...]." This is wrong, mainly because reason can only be used as a method of choosing between knowledge/ideas, not as a source of knowledge.

Point taken. It is copy/pasted now.

The source of knowledge is myths. Reason criticizes them and we get myths that are testable (if knowledge about the physical world), hard to vary and make some assertion about reality. Popper highlighted the myth and testable nature of scientific knowledge, and Deutsch highlights hard to vary and explanation/assertion nature of knowledge.