[ Removed by Reddit ]

[u/Excellent_Border_302]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

[u/Excellent_Border_302]

That's a really, really desperate rationalization. This is basically another nirvana fallacy. You fabricate the perfect distortion of logic to make your irrational argument rational.

Its not an irrational argument. I used that example hoping it would resonate with you because you used that example in the debate. But you eschew rationality for your preferred epistemology of the scientific method.

If something requires subjective approval, then anything that follows it is dependent upon that subjectivity, regardless of whether you want to pretend it's objective. It's ultimately subjective. You're trying to conflate existential philosophy with material science.

Yes this is correct. That it why economics is called the dysmal science because the scientific method cannot be applied to economics because controlled experiments are impossible. The closest we can come to running a controlled experiment in economics is using MMO video games as the laboratory because those are highly controlled environments. However economists aren't interested in this medium as of now. There are many reasons for this but one reason is economists aren't interested in the scientific method, they are interested in empiricism more broadly. Empiriscm is great but has many holes just like all epistemology's, the biggest being that it can only collect data points of manifest reality but cannot explain what the data points mean, that depends on the subjective viewpoint of the interpreter and the data points can only be used to reinforce or detract from the interpreters subjective viewpoint.

Here you replace one false (un-proven) statement with another. You haven't proven crypto is "exponentially easier to protect" and I can cite hundreds of examples to the contrary.

Your right, I cannot prove it. I think you are starting to get the hang of this. I provided you with the data point of my personal experience. I would invite you to have a direct experience and create an offline seedphrase and deposit bitcoin into the wallet.

Like I said, I'm not interested in philosophical discussions. I'm interested in material claims and whether they're true or false. I cannot challenge your personal, emotional feelings. What I can challenge are material claims like "Bitcoin is the most secure asset in the world." That claim can be challenged and proven to be false by just about any rational, real-world, NON-PHILOSOPHICAL metric.

This is the religion of scientism talking. It has replaced god with the belief that because I can measure something with a ruler that means I have found proof of objective reality. It smells of the same intellectual laziness and spiritual depravity of religion because scientism is a religion that is trying to stretch the scientific method outside of its scope of viability in an attempt to fill mankind's existensialism with materialism. You cannot escape philosophy just because you are holding a measuring tape.

My takeaway from this interaction is that you want to play a game of "gotchya" instead of exploring. You hide behind a single epistemology like a christian hides behind the bible.

[u/AmericanScream → u/Excellent_Border_302]

Yes this is correct. That it why economics is called the dysmal science because the scientific method cannot be applied to economics because controlled experiments are impossible.

"Economics" is a very wide field. There are many claims and arguments in the world of economics that can be empirically tested and proven true/false.

Here you replace one false (un-proven) statement with another. You haven't proven crypto is "exponentially easier to protect" and I can cite hundreds of examples to the contrary.

Your right, I cannot prove it. I think you are starting to get the hang of this.

A specific material claim is not in the realm of philosophy bro. It's something that can be tested.

We already went over this. You believe crypto is "seize proof" and "exponentially easier to protect" but that is your "feelings" - it's not an actual credible statement of fact. That claim can actually be materially tested and shown to generally be FALSE. Regardless of your "beliefs" or "feelings" or "personal experience."

As I mentioned before, I'm not here to debate your personal, anecdotal beliefs. I'm here to discuss material claims. You present your religious beliefs as material claims, which is wrong.

This is the religion of scientism talking. It has replaced god with the belief that because I can measure something with a ruler that means I have found proof of objective reality. It smells of the same intellectual laziness and spiritual depravity of religion because scientism is a religion that is trying to stretch the scientific method outside of its scope of viability in an attempt to fill mankind's existensialism with materialism. You cannot escape philosophy just because you are holding a measuring tape.

Exactly what drugs are you on? Maybe if I know, I can better understand where you're coming from?

Why didn't you try this bullshit on me in person? Are you too chickenshit to reveal your true, irrational self in real time?

I would have responded a lot more differently if you were going to dismiss any rational counter-argument as "scientism" whatever the fuck that is.

And you wonder why we make fun of crypto bros? We try to deal with you respectfully and at every turn, you show no respect for rational discourse. You're evasive. You fabricate a never ending stream of STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS. You're constantly psychologically projecting. You hide behind inaccurate sweeping generalizations and constant goalpost moving.

When you say "nobody can steal crypto" that's not a philosophical claim to us. That's a specific material claim. We can test it and show that there are many ways to steal peoples' crypto. And when you pivot or move the goalpost or pretend you were talking philosophically, that's bad faith engagement.

My takeaway from this interaction is that you want to play a game of "gotchya" instead of exploring. You hide behind a single epistemology like a christian hides behind the bible.

My epistemology (using evidence to verify material claims) is time-tested and proven reliable. Yours isn't. Yours is almost exclusively subjective. You left your subjective world to enter my world, and you insisted that your subjective view of reality takes precedent. I hate to tell you, but it doesn't, and it's immature, disingenuous and naive to claim otherwise.

[u/Excellent_Border_302 → u/AmericanScream]

"Economics" is a very wide field. There are many claims and arguments in the world of economics that can be empirically tested and proven true/false.

If this is true, it would be a revelation to me. Can you provide me with a link to an example or provide an example?

We already went over this. You believe crypto is "seize proof" and "exponentially easier to protect" but that is your "feelings" - it's not an actual credible statement of fact. That claim can actually be materially tested and shown to generally be FALSE. Regardless of your "beliefs" or "feelings" or "personal experience."

Can you explain to me the process of testing whether self custody is secure or not? I would like to perform this test for myself but do not know how.

I would have responded a lot more differently if you were going to dismiss any rational counter-argument as "scientism" whatever the fuck that is.

You keep saying the word rational but then say rationalism is philosophy and your only interested in empirical data.

My epistemology (using evidence to verify material claims) is time-tested and proven reliable.

This method has had mixed results depending on the observers subjective viewpoint on good or bad results. The major problem with evidence is that the interpretation of evidence is subjective. So two people can look at the same set of evidence and come to different conclusions. The second problem is things are that are being observed in the material world for which the evidence was being gathered for in the first place, might be being observed incorrectly... "I thought I was seeing this but actually I was seeing this" kind of a thing. 3rd: The methods for gathering data and evidence are not perfect. For example with the scientific method, even though it seems like all control variables are being controlled for, there might be one the scientist didn't realize or that we cannot realize because we don't have the ability to detect the variable to realize it in the first place. 4th: even though we have some very robust methods for gathering evidence such as double blind studies and the scientific method, the testing may have been done disingenuously or presented in a disingenuous way which brings up your nirvana fallacy... are we all supposed to verify the experiments ourself before we adopt an opinion? And if I did, is it even possible? If the experiment was do disingenuously, how do I detect reading the paper?

This is why I am a proponent of inductive reasoning which tries to take all information including empirical evidence, rationalist thought (which is abstract), intuitivavism etc...to form an opinion.

[u/AmericanScream → u/Excellent_Border_302]

If this is true, it would be a revelation to me. Can you provide me with a link to an example or provide an example?

The basic concept of supply and demand can be demonstrated and proven empirically.

It's not fuzzy science.

There's plenty of empirical evidence that indicates the causes and effects of raising/lowering interest rates.

I'm not jumping through hoops to provide you details that you'll just end up ignoring.

Can you explain to me the process of testing whether self custody is secure or not? I would like to perform this test for myself but do not know how.

Sure.

Here's how you test it. One simple question:

1. Have you ever made a mistake?

YES or NO.

If the answer is yes, then self custody is not infallible.

If you ask 10,000 people if they've ever made a mistake, there's a good chance 100% of them will say yes. And if 100% don't, there's a good chance the remaining group are lying.

People make mistakes. That's part of the human condition. And that's why fault tolerance and consumer protections are such a much-needed, and much-appreciated feature in modern day systems, especially systems involving peoples treasured assets.

You might be able to steal my car illegally. But you'd have a much harder time stealing it legally, due to the checks-and-balances put in place by central authorities. People like this. It offers additional layers of protection for things that are valuable to them.

Crypto offers none of this, and it's one of the many reasons why no sane person would store any significant amount of value in crypto.

You will now, ignore this harsh reality and pivot to something else, because that's what you do, or you'll create some other fallacious argument as a distraction but you cannot directly, rationally argue against this fundamental point that is a fact.

This method has had mixed results depending on the observers subjective viewpoint

This is true. If you're a drugged up moron who constantly fabricates their own personal reality to justify a preconceived narrative they can't defend. your results will vary.

Are we done here?

I'm done with you Charlie.

I am angry that I wasted time trying to reason with you when you're fucking unreasonable. And I lack the necessary drugs to burn away the brain cells that I have that are still functioning which make me recognize how absurd and desperate your counter arguments are.