@newt @phnt @sam @sun this is part of where these days i point out hard the importance of the right to be wrong, and poppers original message about it.

the right to be wrong is holding an opinion or doing a behavior that is not provably good. this is important because the amount of scope does not always exist to know if your behavior is good. there are many times that behavior seems like it could go either way until data comes out that informs this. sometimes, even, that data turns out to be motivated reasoning and more data shows that its actually wrong afterall. nature likes this one since genes practice disagreeing on what is optimal by continuing to try things that might not be, and the monocultures get wiped out by diseases that are able to exploit them. this enforced variance ensures a disease cannot ever wipe out all of humanity, because *someone* will have had a mutation that broke whatever assumption the disease exploits.

popper just puts that boundary at "you have the right to be wrong so long as you're just talking about being wrong," it pre-forecloses both the hitlerian and communist revolutionaries that aren't making risky statements and are just blundering straight to hard violence.

rauls veil of ignorance argues that if you design a system with full knowledge that your place will just be a random draw, you will be faced with how bad of an idea it is to design your ideals as extremism (you could, yourself, fall in to the "had one wrong opinion" condition, then be summarily executed as that's basically what most of these people are trying to argue without saying.)