Search 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.

The gap between "it's" and "its" is big. My lack of paying attention to detail is becoming more and more obvious. In any case.

Ah. Now I get it!

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.

What of for "Supersedes previous version?" box? Would that be selected, since the new version would supersede the current version.

Could you expand more on what you mean by the above question?

Ayn Rand claims that "[t]he 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 the only source of knowledge.

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."

I thought ellipsis was including the []. But it isn't.

Ayn Rand claims that "[t]he 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.

So the [...] or ellipsis indicates that the sentence is quoted half way.

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.

I didn't copy/paste, no. I try not to whenever possible. It helps with paying attention to the detail.

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.

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.

The above statement is correct. But instead of "conditional" I would rather use "contextual" or at the right level of abstraction. If we're talking about math, we don't need to bring in other subjects by fiat. Within math, 1+1 = 2 is 100% true. Of course that is in the context of the things being added are identical and the + sign is said to mean "collecting" or "adding." Now, this doesn't mean 1+1=2 is unquestionable, someone might say "what if we are adding an apple and an orange?" And this also doesn't mean that we get this empirically, it is still a guess. You can also know more about it. Like Brett talks about the Peano's axiom. At that point, you are going in more detail, which might be needed if it solves your problem.

My understanding so far is fallible means anyone can be wrong, which means that there is something to be right about, and as such one can be 100% right. y as things get complex and more detailed, it becomes to know which part you are 100% right about. And at that point, you go with what solves your problem, unless your problem is finding ideas that are 100% true, in which case the best you can do is guess how that idea can be false.