6 ms·

Something related to this Logipedia that I'd be interested to see (or work on building one day) is a site intermediate between this and Wikipedia -- a site wher

Something related to this Logipedia that I'd be interested to see (or work on building one day) is a site intermediate between this and Wikipedia -- a site where users can view or create logical arguments, and combine smaller arguments into larger ones. I'm not sure how many people would actually use such a site, but it'd surely promote a higher level of public discourse than, say, Twitter. The only way we really communicate online is using strings; there has to be some potential for something more structured.

blotter_paper 8y ago
I feel like we need a wiki/wolfram-esque system where knowledge is derived from axioms, propositions, and theorems, all of which can be toggled and shared by users. If you have the flat-earth axiom toggled on, or some set of axioms and propositions that lead to a flat-earth theorem, then you'll see a different entry of knowledge about the earth than I will. We just have to accept that nothing is completely provable in any concrete sense, and people will disagree about the noumenon. Flat-earth is an extreme example, but there are ambiguous parts of our models that you can interpret different ways, and data that can be reasonably argued as (in)valid. I think a unified system of disunity would be more clever than the patchwork of IdeologyPedias we have today. Once sets of truths have been distributed they could be given precedence by a user, with additional optional toggling, and then used/redistributed. I remember seeing an open-source project attempting this, I thought it was called OneModel but my google searches for that name are turning up an unrelated data company. The code seemed pretty gnarly to me at the time, but it's been a couple years since I looked at it. Edit: changed ridiculous grammar for clarity.
- dkimbel 8y ago
  I think we're of a similar mind -- I was imagining a system where a user could input certain premises they agree with or values that they hold, and then they could see what conclusions follow (or would follow, with the addition of further premises). You certainly could end up with dubious conclusions, given what premises you start from. At the very least, though, different ideologies would actually come with an explicit set of premises, and people who disagree with those ideologies would be able to see exactly what they disagree on.

blotter_paper 8y ago

I feel like we need a wiki/wolfram-esque system where knowledge is derived from axioms, propositions, and theorems, all of which can be toggled and shared by users. If you have the flat-earth axiom toggled on, or some set of axioms and propositions that lead to a flat-earth theorem, then you'll see a different entry of knowledge about the earth than I will. We just have to accept that nothing is completely provable in any concrete sense, and people will disagree about the noumenon. Flat-earth is an extreme example, but there are ambiguous parts of our models that you can interpret different ways, and data that can be reasonably argued as (in)valid. I think a unified system of disunity would be more clever than the patchwork of IdeologyPedias we have today. Once sets of truths have been distributed they could be given precedence by a user, with additional optional toggling, and then used/redistributed. I remember seeing an open-source project attempting this, I thought it was called OneModel but my google searches for that name are turning up an unrelated data company. The code seemed pretty gnarly to me at the time, but it's been a couple years since I looked at it. Edit: changed ridiculous grammar for clarity.

dkimbel 8y ago
I think we're of a similar mind -- I was imagining a system where a user could input certain premises they agree with or values that they hold, and then they could see what conclusions follow (or would follow, with the addition of further premises). You certainly could end up with dubious conclusions, given what premises you start from. At the very least, though, different ideologies would actually come with an explicit set of premises, and people who disagree with those ideologies would be able to see exactly what they disagree on.