Search Ideas

Too jargon-y.

It means that I have to scroll sideways to see the end of each line in a paragraph, which makes it more difficult to read ideas. It feels quite bad to use, compared to using Veritula on my computer, where the entire width of a paragraph is visible at all times.

A solution might be to adjust the mobile site dynamically to fit the user’s phone width.

Reflecting on one's past thought and action seems to be a key component of living a life 100% guided by reason. Thinking about this has inspired me to make an effort to search for methods and tools that help systematise, formalise and improve the quality of my self-reflection.

I already have a loose journalling habit, but it is completely free of schedule, structure or method.

Reflecting on one's past thought and action seems to be a key component of living a life 100% guided by reason. Thinking about this has inspired me to make an effort to search for methods and tools that help systematise, formalise and improve the quality self-reflection.

The Open Society

The concept of an 'Open Society' is central to the political philosophy of Critical Rationalism, detailed by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies. An open society is characterized by individualism, where personal choice and responsibility are paramount, in contrast to a closed society (e.g., tribal or collectivist) which demands the subordination of the individual to the group. It replaces the justificationist political question, "Who should rule?", with the fallibilist question: "How can we structure our institutions so that we can remove bad rulers and bad policies without violence?". In this view, democracy is not "rule by the people" (an essentialist definition) but is valued as the only known institutional mechanism for error-correction and leadership change without bloodshed.

This is a good idea.

I often receive criticisms that I have no counter-criticisms for, and it would be nice to be able to acknowledge those, both as a way to display gratitude, and as a way to indicate that I think something is tentatively settled.

Thank you for clarifying this. The idea of submitting a criticism and also immediately revising makes sense.

The criticisms you shared today (that inspired me to post #2884) are valid. This question came out of confusion as to how Veritula is intended to be used, rather than frustration directed at you.

Political Holism

Synonymous with large-scale social engineering, this is the political program that follows from Historicism. It is the attempt to remodel an entire society from a central blueprint, based on a historicist prophecy of an "ideal" state. Popper argued this program is both violent and irrational. It is violent because it requires the suppression of all dissent to enact the central plan, and it is irrational because when an entire system is changed at once, it becomes impossible to trace the consequences of any single action, making it impossible to learn from mistakes.

This is no longer working for me.

I am currently unable to zoom out to the full width when accessing Veritula on mobile.

Ah I see.

Since users are able to revise other users’ ideas, why is it standard practice on Veritula to submit trivial improvements to ideas (such as correction of typos, poor grammar and redundancies) as criticisms, rather than directly revising the idea itself? Example: #2865

Perhaps I have misunderstood the intention of enabling users to revise other people’s ideas.

Continuing on from #2882, would it make sense to enable users to criticise the discussion/entry/topic, such that it would render a criticism pill?

If ‘discussions’ take on a broader form, like we have discussed up to #2880, would this change? What if a user wishes to express that they take issue with something written in the entry/topic body text? I suppose they would quote it in their top-level criticism.

Given #2877, will this still be the case?

So I’m open to replacing the word ‘discussion’ with a more general word. It should still communicate a sort of ‘grouping’ of ideas but need not be as narrow as ‘discussion’. Would that help?

Certainly. I think this makes a lot sense.

I think ‘entry’ is my favourite of the ones you mentioned (and of some others I explored with Gemini). ‘Topic’ is also alright, but seems more leading than ‘entry’. I like ‘entry’ because it seems the most agnostic to user intent, while also working fine with UI elements.

Note: Discussions with outstanding top-level criticisms do not render a 'criticised' pill like ideas with outstanding criticisms do.

Since discussions themselves are criticisable, is there anything wrong with just titling a discussion 'Karl Popper' and then putting the equivalent of an encyclopedia article in the about section? That is functionally identical to what an article would be, but I am interested if you would prefer discussions not be used that way.

I just realised that it is possible to publish a top-level idea as a 'criticism' in a discussion, in the way I have advocated an article would be criticisable. I am struggling to understand what it means to criticise a discussion. @dennis-hackethal may you please explain this?

This would work fine for discussion-specific or idea-specific activity feeds, even at scale.

I noticed that the idea count of some discussions in the Discussions page seem to be inaccurate. In the Keeping Tidy discussion, I count 13 ideas, including revisions, while the listing for it on Discussions says it contains 17.

Interview published today, with one of the founders of Wikipedia:
https://youtu.be/8-0vUZ0hTK4?si=Szd_nS4UvCy9Mifi

He argues, like I do, that Wikipedia should allow multiple competing articles on each topic.

I partly agree with him on other problems he identifies, but unfortunately he doesn’t come at it from a Popperian angle.

Interview published today, with one of the founders of Wikipedia:
https://youtu.be/8-0vUZ0hTK4?si=Szd_nS4UvCy9Mifi

I agree with him on many of the problems he identifies, but he doesn’t come at it from a Popperian angle like I do. He argues, like I do, that Wikipedia should allow multiple competing articles on each topic.

This leads me to believe that my untidiness may have to do with physiological lethargy, and that increasing availability of biological energy may contribute to a solution to it.