5 ms·

Nice No True Scotsman fallacy.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Spivak 4y ago
I hate this meme, "No True Scotsman" is not the same thing as language being descriptive and evolving over time. There are two concepts the parent is describing: the set of things described as crypto made before 2015 and the set of things described as crypto made after 2015. The two groups are well defined. The fact that there isn't a formal name for the era of "pre-finance-bro crypto" or "first wave crypto" doesn't mean it's has anything to do with the scotts. The parent's language might be a little ambiguous but that's to be expected when trying to describe yet unnamed things and their meaning is clear enough. Willfully misunderstanding someone's words to create a logical flaw that isn't there should be its own fallacy.
- master-lincoln 4y ago
  superkuh did not specify what exactly changed. Saying nothing created after 2015 is an "actual cryptocurrency" without justifying that somehow makes me think this might be a "no true Scotsman" argument. What constitutes these eras? And why do you bring that up when it was about a class of products not being "an actual cryptocurrency". I would have thought there are properties to the product that make it belong to the class, not merely when it was created.To me these unnamed things and their meaning you talk about are absolutely not clear enough. I believe you two have a point. But it doesn't come across... PS: I would argue in 2015 "crypto" was mostly known as abbreviation for cryptography and had nothing to do with decentralized public ledgers.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    I'm in no way trying to argue that the parent's classifications or conclusion make sense, just that it's not NTS because the parent isn't trying to make some universal assertions about crpyto in general and denying the exceptions but comment that the "scene" has changed drastically and the word cryptocurrency along with it. NTS would be something like * "All things people are calling cryptocurrencies made after 2015 are just finance-bro scams." * "But what about TotallyLegitCoin, it's not a scam." * "But that's not really a cryptocurrency."
anonporridge 4y ago
No. This is a stablecoin which has a centralized management team that can halt and control activity on the blockchain, which is fundamentally different from a bitcoin or monero which is a truly decentralized system with no controlling organization that can change anything without slow bulding, mass consent of all participants in the network, and is anyway naturally very stable because of its simplicity and extremely conservative and risk averse development process. It's more like an Englishman yelling out that they're a Scotsman as they ransack the public square. It's not a fallacy to point out that they're simply not a Scotsman.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

I hate this meme, "No True Scotsman" is not the same thing as language being descriptive and evolving over time. There are two concepts the parent is describing: the set of things described as crypto made before 2015 and the set of things described as crypto made after 2015. The two groups are well defined. The fact that there isn't a formal name for the era of "pre-finance-bro crypto" or "first wave crypto" doesn't mean it's has anything to do with the scotts. The parent's language might be a little ambiguous but that's to be expected when trying to describe yet unnamed things and their meaning is clear enough. Willfully misunderstanding someone's words to create a logical flaw that isn't there should be its own fallacy.

master-lincoln 4y ago
superkuh did not specify what exactly changed. Saying nothing created after 2015 is an "actual cryptocurrency" without justifying that somehow makes me think this might be a "no true Scotsman" argument. What constitutes these eras? And why do you bring that up when it was about a class of products not being "an actual cryptocurrency". I would have thought there are properties to the product that make it belong to the class, not merely when it was created.To me these unnamed things and their meaning you talk about are absolutely not clear enough. I believe you two have a point. But it doesn't come across... PS: I would argue in 2015 "crypto" was mostly known as abbreviation for cryptography and had nothing to do with decentralized public ledgers.
- Spivak 4y ago
  I'm in no way trying to argue that the parent's classifications or conclusion make sense, just that it's not NTS because the parent isn't trying to make some universal assertions about crpyto in general and denying the exceptions but comment that the "scene" has changed drastically and the word cryptocurrency along with it. NTS would be something like * "All things people are calling cryptocurrencies made after 2015 are just finance-bro scams." * "But what about TotallyLegitCoin, it's not a scam." * "But that's not really a cryptocurrency."

anonporridge 4y ago

No. This is a stablecoin which has a centralized management team that can halt and control activity on the blockchain, which is fundamentally different from a bitcoin or monero which is a truly decentralized system with no controlling organization that can change anything without slow bulding, mass consent of all participants in the network, and is anyway naturally very stable because of its simplicity and extremely conservative and risk averse development process. It's more like an Englishman yelling out that they're a Scotsman as they ransack the public square. It's not a fallacy to point out that they're simply not a Scotsman.