pull down to refresh
42 sats \ 2 replies \ @leaf 4 Oct \ parent \ on: Which Fork will you Sell and/or Keep? Bitcoin Knots vs Bitcoin Core bitcoin
My general view is that, in an ideal world, people would focus on the topic at hand and explore all available arguments in depth, regardless of their source.
Unfortunately, with the amount of arguments on any topic, and the amount of topics to explore, this usually isn't feasible. So we need to reduce the number of arguments we will explore to a manageable amount. We can use the trustworthiness of the source to achieve this.
That opens the possibility of dismissing a valid argument based on the source, but I believe it is necessary given the unmanagable amount of arguments in total. In a single human lifetime, it impossible to explore everything.
There are strategies to avoid falsehoods when doing this, like occasionally going deep on a single topic to better identify the trustworthy sources, or once in a while randomly exploring a source you would have otherwise dismissed.
In summary, I feel very comfortable dismissing Kratters opinions on bitcoin based on his crazy-ass views on other topics. There are plenty of better sources for arguments counter to my beliefs without having to turn to a nutjob like Kratter.
That way of thinking is illogical.
A valid argument stands on its own, it is unrelated to the messenger.
The state exploits illogical ignorance like yours to push its propaganda via "well respected experts"
You cannot rely on a positive/negative bias towards the messenger if you expect to be a free thinker in this age of information war.
reply
The state exploits illogical ignorance like yours to push its propaganda via "well respected experts"
I agree that authority is a bad way to establish truth. I'm not more likely to consider someone's arguments because they're a "well respected expert".
You cannot rely on a positive/negative bias towards the messenger if you expect to be a free thinker in this age of information war.
My approach is a direct response of the problem of having too much information than is possible to process. Whether it's effective is hard to measure.
I think the best we can do is hold our beliefs tentatively and seek out different opinions and be open to new arguments/perspectives.
But that's not to be confused with "explore every position that differs to me". As I said, that is impossible. So when I consider a position counter to my own, I need to maximise the chance I'm going to get some utiliity out of that time.
An ad hominem would be if I said "Kratter is wrong about bitcoin because he's a really bad person!". I'm not attacking his position based on his character or motivations.
What I'm doing is not considering his opinion at all. He could be right, but I won't know because I've got better places to spend my time than considering all the things that cascade out of his piss-stream mouth.
reply