Activity Feed
#2574·Benjamin Davies, about 1 month agoMoney needs to be a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value.
Features that support a price floor create the conditions where one can expect that their wealth won’t completely evaporate for one reason or another. Something that has no features supporting a price floor is not good money.
If gold no longer has features supporting a price floor at some point in the future (as you claim might happen), then gold would also not be good money in that future.
Zcash has nothing going for it that makes it a store of value. To the degree that it is ‘worth’ anything in the future, it is because of the dynamics I refer to in #2497.
I agree that it would be optimal if Zcash and Bitcoin had such price floors. But couldn't it still be the best alternative in certain jurisdictions, e.g. where it's impossible/impractical to own gold, and the local currency gets inflated away?
removed incorrect use of “retroactively, and added emphasis
It is one thing to retroactively explain why a particular god spread more than others in the past, but it is another thing to claim that your specific god of choice will spread more than others in the future.
Your claim is that Zcash is the next money, which is analogous to claiming your niche god of choice is under-appreciated and will be the next big one.
It is one thing to explain why a particular god spread more than others in the past, but it is another thing to claim that your specific god of choice will spread more than others in the future.
Your claim is that Zcash is the next money, which is analogous to claiming your niche god of choice is under-appreciated and will be the next big one.
typo
It is one thing to retroactively explain why a particular good spread more than others in the past, but it is another thing to claim that your specific god of choice will spread more than others in the future.
Your claim is that Zcash is the next money, which is analogous to claiming your niche god of choice is under-appreciated and will be the next big one.
It is one thing to retroactively explain why a particular god spread more than others in the past, but it is another thing to claim that your specific god of choice will spread more than others in the future.
Your claim is that Zcash is the next money, which is analogous to claiming your niche god of choice is under-appreciated and will be the next big one.
#2568·Erik OrrjeOP, about 1 month agoIt is the same as arguing for a specific god because the god you like has specific features. The god itself is still easy to vary.
I could still see someone with knowledge of psychology and theology provide a good explanation as to why certain gods and religions have spread in favour of others. All ideas are solutions to some problem.
It is one thing to retroactively explain why a particular good spread more than others in the past, but it is another thing to claim that your specific god of choice will spread more than others in the future.
Your claim is that Zcash is the next money, which is analogous to claiming your niche god of choice is under-appreciated and will be the next big one.
#2567·Erik OrrjeOP, about 1 month agoThe part that is easy to vary is that an arbitrary amount of different cryptos can be made with the same features.
There's never an arbitrary amount of solutions to a specific problem. In this case, the problems are the centralisation and the lack of privacy of our current money. They may not be problems for you specifically (e.g. if you live in a high-trust jurisdiction), but I'd like to hear arguments as to why nobody in the world would consider them problems.
I don’t deny that Zcash might be decentralised and private.
For Zcash to become the next money, it is not sufficient for it to just be durable, fungible, private, decentralised, etc.
As long as it doesn’t have any underlying value, it will not be suitable as money.
You are using secondary attributes of good money as positive justifications for Zcash as good money, but you are failing to answer the criticism that Zcash has no underlying value.
#2566·Erik OrrjeOP, about 1 month agoValue comes from solving a problem.
Money solves (among other things) the problem of barter by being a medium of exchange. Different media solve this problem better than others. That determines its value.
I still don't see why there has to be a price floor set by the commodity's utility (for other things than being money)? Also, the value could still go to zero if that utility was no longer needed: Gold isn't guaranteed to be valued in industry or jewellry in the future.
Money needs to be a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value.
Features that support a price floor create the conditions where one can expect that their wealth won’t completely evaporate for one reason or another. Something that has no features supporting a price floor is not good money.
If gold no longer has features supporting a price floor at some point in the future (as you claim might happen), then gold would also not be good money in that future.
Zcash has nothing going for it that makes it a store of value. To the degree that it is ‘worth’ anything in the future, it is because of the dynamics I refer to in #2497.
I ask Chicagoans their thoughts on reason and rationality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRUS8dMGOF4
#2572·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoBug: tooltips sometimes don’t disappear. They should disappear when the user stops hovering over the element that triggered the tooltip.
Fixed as of f7833c6.
Bug: tooltips sometimes don’t disappear. They should disappear when the user stops hovering over the element that triggered the tooltip.
#2160·Dennis HackethalOP, about 2 months agoPeople could wrongly think they have epistemological relevance. For example, they might adopt an idea that has pending criticism just because it got positive reactions.
In a way, reactions might have epistemological relevance.
If an idea has pending criticisms, it can still have parts worth saving in a revision. Reactions based on paragraphs (#2458) could point out those parts.
#2160·Dennis HackethalOP, about 2 months agoPeople could wrongly think they have epistemological relevance. For example, they might adopt an idea that has pending criticism just because it got positive reactions.
The red “Criticized” label is far more prominent than reactions would be.
#2417·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoAre you asking if there can be correspondence between two abstractions? Or between a physical object and an abstraction?
Between two abstractions (ambiguous statements made by us, and perfectly precise propositions).
#2496·Benjamin Davies, about 1 month agoThe part that is easy to vary is that an arbitrary amount of different cryptos can be made with the same features.
The features themselves can be as specific as you like but the overall argument is still extremely easy to vary, because it is an argument for a specific cryptocurrency.
It is the same as arguing for a specific god because the god you like has specific features. The god itself is still easy to vary.
It is the same as arguing for a specific god because the god you like has specific features. The god itself is still easy to vary.
I could still see someone with knowledge of psychology and theology provide a good explanation as to why certain gods and religions have spread in favour of others. All ideas are solutions to some problem.
#2496·Benjamin Davies, about 1 month agoThe part that is easy to vary is that an arbitrary amount of different cryptos can be made with the same features.
The features themselves can be as specific as you like but the overall argument is still extremely easy to vary, because it is an argument for a specific cryptocurrency.
It is the same as arguing for a specific god because the god you like has specific features. The god itself is still easy to vary.
The part that is easy to vary is that an arbitrary amount of different cryptos can be made with the same features.
There's never an arbitrary amount of solutions to a specific problem. In this case, the problems are the centralisation and the lack of privacy of our current money. They may not be problems for you specifically (e.g. if you live in a high-trust jurisdiction), but I'd like to hear arguments as to why nobody in the world would consider them problems.
#2497·Benjamin Davies, about 1 month agoDurability, Portability, Divisibility, Fungibility, and Stability
These are all secondary values.
The durability of something is irrelevant if the thing itself is useless.
The portability of something is irrelevant if the thing itself is useless.
The divisibility of something is irrelevant if the thing itself is useless.
Etcetera, etcetera.The only demand for something like this comes from either a mistaken understanding of what ‘value’ is/means (e.g. believing that the ‘durability’ of something otherwise useless makes it valuable), or from the Keynesian Beauty Contest linked above.
This dynamic makes cryptos wonderful as instruments of speculation, but they will never be money unless they are backed by some independently useful commodity (which IIRC some actually are), or are made legal tender by some government (which defeats the point).
Value comes from solving a problem.
Money solves (among other things) the problem of barter by being a medium of exchange. Different media solve this problem better than others. That determines its value.
I still don't see why there has to be a price floor set by the commodity's utility (for other things than being money)? Also, the value could still go to zero if that utility was no longer needed: Gold isn't guaranteed to be valued in industry or jewellry in the future.
#2509·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoNew arguments may not belong at the bottom of the criticism chain. Depending on context, it may need to be either a new sibling at the top of the chain or a completely new standalone idea.
I didn’t check this exchange in detail to say for sure. But I recommend checking, so I’m marking this as a criticism. If you think the new argument can remain as is, leave a counter-criticism to neutralize my criticism.
#2540·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoWe could try to save Deutsch’s terminology this way, sure. But I don’t think that’s what he means. He sees room for different gradations of ‘good’. For example, from BoI ch. 9:
[W]e should choose between policies not on the basis of their origin, but according to how good they are as explanations: how hard to vary.
Thank you for sharing this. I missed this in my read of BoI, and I agree now that Deutsch is wrong on this point.
Separate from Deutsch and going forward with our own epistemological practices, I think it would be appropriate for us to use terms like ‘good’ and ‘hard to vary’ in the sense of ‘not bad’ and ‘not easy to vary’. This eliminates the problem of gradation and positive argument, while preserving a shared and otherwise useful set of terminology.
Removed focus on ‘good vs bad’ as a particularly important dichotomy
If “good” is considered the same as “not bad” doesn’t that close the gap between Deutsch and Popper? (Using Edwin’s conception of good and bad.)
If “bad” = “contains known flaws”,
and “not bad” = “contains no known flaws”,
why can’t “good” = “contains no known flaws” too?
I can see no reason that “good” means anything more than “not bad”.
Similarly, “hard to vary” would just be an equivalent of “not easy to vary”.
If “good” is considered the same as “not bad” (or the equivalent in any epistemological dichotomy) doesn’t that close the gap between Deutsch and Popper?
If “bad” = “contains known flaws”,
and “not bad” = “contains no known flaws”,
why can’t “good” = “contains no known flaws” too?
I can see no reason that “good” means anything more than “not bad”.
Similarly, “hard to vary” would just be an equivalent of “not easy to vary”.
#2560·Benjamin Davies, about 1 month agoI meant this conception from #2073:
My current view is that the only meaningful dichotomy is good vs. bad
If we take ‘good vs bad’ to be the only meaningful dichotomy, and if we state that ‘good’ is the equivalent of ‘not bad’, I think that bridges Popper and Deutsch.
We don’t need to take ‘good vs bad’ to be the only meaningful dichotomy for the idea to stand, so Edwin’s idea is not important to the argument.
#2541·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoIf “good” is considered the same as “not bad” doesn’t that close the gap between Deutsch and Popper? (Using Edwin’s conception of good and bad.)
Do you have a quote of Edwin saying good = not bad?
I meant this conception from #2073:
My current view is that the only meaningful dichotomy is good vs. bad
If we take ‘good vs bad’ to be the only meaningful dichotomy, and if we state that ‘good’ is the equivalent of ‘not bad’, I think that bridges Popper and Deutsch.
If you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, than there is no difference between what I said and what you said. Because you knew that "that" part of your knowledge was true, but it wasn't true as it turns out after further inquiry.
If you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, then there is no difference between what I said and what you said. Because you knew that "that" part of your knowledge was true, but it wasn't true as it turns out after further inquiry.
#2552·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month ago… there is no difference between what I said and what you said.
Unclear what “what I said” and “what you said” refer to. Quotes
To rephrase what you said, you can tell fallibly that some knowledge is true, and what I said was "[i]t may solve a problem, but that doesn't guarantee that it’s true."
#2554·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month ago"that"
Why is this word in quotes? If you mean to emphasize, use asterisks.
I meant to refer to anything that you know to be true.
#2547·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoFeature idea: selecting some text, then hitting ‘Comment’, automatically pastes a quote of the selected text into the textarea, Telegram style, with the proper Markdown formatting.
Done as of 7061786.
#2109·Edwin de Wit revised about 2 months ago@dennis-hackethal you have regularly pointed out to me that it’s a mistake to assign strengths or weaknesses to arguments—for example, in #1809 and #1927. I’d love to get to the bottom of that.
On one hand, I see what you mean. A criticism can either be counter-criticized or it can be an unresolved error. If it’s a bad criticism, you quickly counter it—say, by clarifying why it’s irrelevant—and move on.
I also see why talking about a “gradient” or comparative strength between arguments is problematic: there’s no objective criterion to measure them against. We can only say one theory is better than another when both attempt to explain the same phenomenon—then we can evaluate them using properties such as hard-to-varyness and other criteria Deutsch describes. (We can get into that if you’d like, though I don’t think that’s our main disagreement.). But this comparison doesn’t apply when we’re dealing with very different criticisms of a single idea, because there’s no common standard to measure them against. Comparing their “strength” becomes arbitrary.
However, I still think there are good and bad criticisms, just as there are good and bad explanations (following Deutsch’s distinction: for instance, bad explanations are easy to vary or point to authorities to justify themselves rather than offering a hard-to-vary account of how and why something works). While I could simply counter-criticize bad criticisms and move on, there’s also the matter of efficiency and opportunity cost: I don’t want to waste time repeatedly countering poor criticisms, or worse, get stuck in circular debates with people who don’t recognize that some arguments aren’t good criticisms at all. I’d rather focus my attention on good criticisms.
To clarify what I mean, here’s an excerpt from my book:
The most important principle to remember while criticizing is: Criticize, don’t defend or attack. Good explanations invite criticism of their intrinsic content—whether the explanation itself works, solves the problem, and avoids worse side effects. Bad explanations, by contrast, deflect criticism onto irrelevant, extrinsic properties such as authority or track record—e.g., “this is the method that successful company X uses,” “I believe strongly in this approach,” or “it’s coming from person Y, so it’s worthless.”
That kind of “criticism” isn’t real criticism at all. It’s just attacking or defending. And when we play that game, the explanation itself stays untouched and stagnant. The idea doesn’t get scrutinized or improved—it only gets shielded or dismissed for irrelevant reasons.That being said, I agree with the points you brought up in #2061, namely that there can be no positive arguments for an idea. By extension, if Veritula would require a specific format or mode of criticism, we’d fall into the very error Popper warns about with the Myth of the Framework—the mistaken belief that criticism requires a shared framework or language. So, Veritula should functionally remain as it is. At most, you might consider adding guidelines on what constitutes good versus poor criticism, so that critics can improve their skills. But I agree: the person who created the idea should remain solely responsible for addressing the criticisms they receive, not dismissing them as “bad” and moving on.
Tagging @bart-vanderhaegen because he and I have discussed this at length—in fact, I got the defending/attacking framing from him.
… I still think there are good and bad criticisms …
To conclude that a criticism is bad, we first need counter-criticisms. Otherwise, we have no reasons for considering a criticism bad. And once we have those reasons in the form of counter-criticisms, we can just state them.