4 ms·

> ...behavior of the people involved in the discussion... It is the context of the "sociological event" that I refer to, not the discussion about the discussio

by woodman 10y ago

> ...behavior of the people involved in the discussion... It is the context of the "sociological event" that I refer to, not the discussion about the discussion that you seem to have in mind. > There's always some possible explanation, no matter how outlandish. You are describing the satisfiability problem, where a lot of contrived problems are obviously impossible to satisfy. That isn't emotionally driven goalpost moving, that is a strict adherence to reason.

kbenson 10y ago
> It is the context of the "sociological event" that I refer to, not the discussion about the discussion that you seem to have in mind. Then let me clarify my intent. That "for some there is no burden of proof high enough, no evidence that cannot be dismissed as fabrication or manipulation." see,s self evident from my experience in seeing how people are treating this discussion, and the "evidence" being put out to support or discredit any specific claim, not just of Craig Wright, but of those just putting forth possible explanations for his reasoning for his actions, in cased presupposing him as both a fraud and as Satoshi. I think this has less to do with it being about a cryptographic system than it does with people really liking the mystery, and wanting to hold onto their belief in it. > You are describing the satisfiability problem, where a lot of contrived problems are obviously impossible to satisfy. That isn't emotionally driven goalpost moving, that is a strict adherence to reason. I wouldn't call the belief the moon landing was faked a strict adherence to reason, and I think the same underlying motivations are at play. This will play out, and the vast majority of people will come to the same belief, but I believe, through what I've witnessed so far, that there will be a core the refuses to let go of some of the more outlandish possibilities.
- woodman 10y ago
  I'm sorry, but your clarifying statement left me even more uncertain about your message. I think we'll just have to leave it, the comparison of any party in a discussion to moon landing conspiracy theorists pretty much shuts down the conversation in a Godwin like fashion.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    I think you really are misinterpreting me. I wasn't using belief of the moon landing hoax in a terribly disparaging way, and I wasn't comparing a single party of a discussion to people with that belief, but multiple people from both sides (if you think I was taking a side, I urge you to re-read my comments considering that I most definitely am not). That doesn't make them stupid, it just means they have a narrative that they believe, and are invested in, and that makes certain ideas that others would consider not worth considering much more likely to be true in their eyes. Everyone does this, some of us have a narrative that's more likely to match with reality in some instances than others, but by the nature of the problem it's very hard to know if that applies to yourself.

by woodman 10y ago

kbenson 10y ago

> It is the context of the "sociological event" that I refer to, not the discussion about the discussion that you seem to have in mind. Then let me clarify my intent. That "for some there is no burden of proof high enough, no evidence that cannot be dismissed as fabrication or manipulation." see,s self evident from my experience in seeing how people are treating this discussion, and the "evidence" being put out to support or discredit any specific claim, not just of Craig Wright, but of those just putting forth possible explanations for his reasoning for his actions, in cased presupposing him as both a fraud and as Satoshi. I think this has less to do with it being about a cryptographic system than it does with people really liking the mystery, and wanting to hold onto their belief in it. > You are describing the satisfiability problem, where a lot of contrived problems are obviously impossible to satisfy. That isn't emotionally driven goalpost moving, that is a strict adherence to reason. I wouldn't call the belief the moon landing was faked a strict adherence to reason, and I think the same underlying motivations are at play. This will play out, and the vast majority of people will come to the same belief, but I believe, through what I've witnessed so far, that there will be a core the refuses to let go of some of the more outlandish possibilities.

woodman 10y ago
I'm sorry, but your clarifying statement left me even more uncertain about your message. I think we'll just have to leave it, the comparison of any party in a discussion to moon landing conspiracy theorists pretty much shuts down the conversation in a Godwin like fashion.
- kbenson 10y ago
  I think you really are misinterpreting me. I wasn't using belief of the moon landing hoax in a terribly disparaging way, and I wasn't comparing a single party of a discussion to people with that belief, but multiple people from both sides (if you think I was taking a side, I urge you to re-read my comments considering that I most definitely am not). That doesn't make them stupid, it just means they have a narrative that they believe, and are invested in, and that makes certain ideas that others would consider not worth considering much more likely to be true in their eyes. Everyone does this, some of us have a narrative that's more likely to match with reality in some instances than others, but by the nature of the problem it's very hard to know if that applies to yourself.