3 ms·

In a sense, science is just a belief system so no different from, say, creationism. Established practice, shared long-term experience among users, and widesprea

In a sense, science is just a belief system so no different from, say, creationism. Established practice, shared long-term experience among users, and widespread consent on some fundamental aspects of 'real' currency make (among other things) all the difference. "You know, actually, there are no heaps of sand, all there is is grains of sand" is wrong on much the same counts. A grain of sand is hardly less of a human mental construct than a heap of sand. We cannot tell the moment that an accumulating mass of individual grains turns into a heap, doesn't mean there 'are no heaps'. Just because both fiat and crypto are both among other things based on faith, too, doesn't mean there are no vital differences. Same goes for the observation that, yes, a given fiat denomination may display the same roller coaster ride of a wildly swaying exchange rate, but do we in practice experience that? Not with most fiat currencies, most of the time (or so we hope). In crypto, it's par for the course, the insane growth flanks being one of the concept's main selling points for a time. In currency much as in real estate you want stability over everything else if you're sane and not exuberantly affluent. A skyrocketing commodity is a red flag—what goes up, must come down.

ddingus 4y ago
Sidebar: Science is absolutely not a belief system. It is the product of a specific method that can yield understanding. Understanding is basically monkey do A, monkey get b. And that goes on to any monkey do A, any monkey gets b. Knowing is a different thing, as is believing. Practicing science will yield neither. When we do A, our confidence in getting B increases with the quality of our understanding. Should we lack confidence, we ask more questions. Science questions everything, including science and the scientific method itself. Where we do not understand, we ask more questions. Where we are inclined to believe, we don't, and we ask more questions. Belief is not merely high confidence. People conflate the two, but science does not. Where we do A and get B almost all the time, except 1/10000000 times we get C, then we ask questions. There simply is no believing in the scientific method, which has delivered to us our current body of understanding. Now people can choose to believe or not believe in science, and or understanding we have arrived at via the scientific method. That is on them and in no way renders science into a belief system. Science is all about asking questions to improve our understanding. That is it. Science is very different from creationism. Creationism is rooted in a belief there is a creator. Science is rooted in a method to ask questions and gain understanding. These are entirely different basis.
- DemocracyFTW2 4y ago
  > Now people can choose to believe or not believe in science, and or understanding we have arrived at via the scientific method. That is on them and in no way renders science into a belief system. You know I think our main difference here is that I took the liberty to call something that "people can choose to believe or not believe in" a "belief system". That may be a loaded word insofar as it is commonly only awarded to non-scientific areas; it's something of a pejorative word but my intention was solely to point out that if you do not believe in the validity of the scientific method you will likely also see no reason to believe in specific scientific results. I do think there is a qualitative difference between science and, say, religion (for one thing, scientific results can sometimes be shown to have been wrong in a way that faith can almost never be) but OTOH what do I "know"? Also observe that while the points you're making are totally valid they still don't capture the gist of my argument which was precisely that there is a qualitative difference between fiat and crypto despite both needing people to trust them, that there is a decisive difference between science and religion despite both being, as you rightly point out, things that "people can choose to believe or not believe in".
  - ddingus 4y ago
    >You know I think our main difference here is that I took the liberty to call something that "people can choose to believe or not believe in" a "belief system". That may be a loaded word insofar as it is commonly only awarded to non-scientific areas Oh yeah, fair. It is loaded with me and that is due to my poor luck avoiding anti-science types these lasn few years. If I came across somehow judging you or some other negative / crappy thing, I apologize and that was not my intent at all. I also had some education in my early life, through mentors with crazy good skills, who really wanted the young people in their circles to understand science and what knowing and believing really are. No worries. Agreed on differences in crypto. Oversimplifying things relate crypto is. chronic right now. The whole thing makes me think of the laser. Once we command of that tech, it was an killer solution looking for problems to solve. For a while there lasers were basically a curio! A big step forward, needing other steps to be taken before we were able to realize benefit. Cheers, and have a great week!

ddingus 4y ago

Sidebar: Science is absolutely not a belief system. It is the product of a specific method that can yield understanding. Understanding is basically monkey do A, monkey get b. And that goes on to any monkey do A, any monkey gets b. Knowing is a different thing, as is believing. Practicing science will yield neither. When we do A, our confidence in getting B increases with the quality of our understanding. Should we lack confidence, we ask more questions. Science questions everything, including science and the scientific method itself. Where we do not understand, we ask more questions. Where we are inclined to believe, we don't, and we ask more questions. Belief is not merely high confidence. People conflate the two, but science does not. Where we do A and get B almost all the time, except 1/10000000 times we get C, then we ask questions. There simply is no believing in the scientific method, which has delivered to us our current body of understanding. Now people can choose to believe or not believe in science, and or understanding we have arrived at via the scientific method. That is on them and in no way renders science into a belief system. Science is all about asking questions to improve our understanding. That is it. Science is very different from creationism. Creationism is rooted in a belief there is a creator. Science is rooted in a method to ask questions and gain understanding. These are entirely different basis.

DemocracyFTW2 4y ago
> Now people can choose to believe or not believe in science, and or understanding we have arrived at via the scientific method. That is on them and in no way renders science into a belief system. You know I think our main difference here is that I took the liberty to call something that "people can choose to believe or not believe in" a "belief system". That may be a loaded word insofar as it is commonly only awarded to non-scientific areas; it's something of a pejorative word but my intention was solely to point out that if you do not believe in the validity of the scientific method you will likely also see no reason to believe in specific scientific results. I do think there is a qualitative difference between science and, say, religion (for one thing, scientific results can sometimes be shown to have been wrong in a way that faith can almost never be) but OTOH what do I "know"? Also observe that while the points you're making are totally valid they still don't capture the gist of my argument which was precisely that there is a qualitative difference between fiat and crypto despite both needing people to trust them, that there is a decisive difference between science and religion despite both being, as you rightly point out, things that "people can choose to believe or not believe in".
- ddingus 4y ago
  >You know I think our main difference here is that I took the liberty to call something that "people can choose to believe or not believe in" a "belief system". That may be a loaded word insofar as it is commonly only awarded to non-scientific areas Oh yeah, fair. It is loaded with me and that is due to my poor luck avoiding anti-science types these lasn few years. If I came across somehow judging you or some other negative / crappy thing, I apologize and that was not my intent at all. I also had some education in my early life, through mentors with crazy good skills, who really wanted the young people in their circles to understand science and what knowing and believing really are. No worries. Agreed on differences in crypto. Oversimplifying things relate crypto is. chronic right now. The whole thing makes me think of the laser. Once we command of that tech, it was an killer solution looking for problems to solve. For a while there lasers were basically a curio! A big step forward, needing other steps to be taken before we were able to realize benefit. Cheers, and have a great week!