First off, to get a methodological point out of the way : beliefs, feelings, more generally speaking mental processes without a concrete reference can nevertheless still be mistaken, and provably so.
One could for instance believe that the number five was given to him by God personally, as a gift. This belief is neither here nor there should that same one propose that 5 + 6 = 7. While his belief as to the source of the number five may be true or false and in any case does not interest us, his proposition about adding five and six is nevertheless wrong.
Another could put forth his imagination of "dragons, superb beings made out of pure energy", and again, this nonsense is neither here nor there - if it interests it would principally be for either aesthetic or psychiatric reasons. However, should that another also propose that his dragons (superb beings made of energy purée) heated a cup of water to boiling while expending no energy whatsoever, that another would be mistaken. Pure and simple, his dragons don't enter in the discussion of water and its heating.
The common way in which naive bystanders fail in evaluating these types of claims is some variation of "if broken once she's a slut", which is to say : if we've already granted that something unlikely may exist, then any further such requests should be granted by default. Plainly stated, the idiocy involved is obvious. Seriously, if you've ever bought a woman lunch you're now to buy all lunches she ever eats ? If you borrow from a bank once they might as well give you the keys to the vaults ? If you've bought a stick of gum from a store six weeks ago you now own that store ? Good luck with all this heh.
Even if requested specifically, one has to bear in mind that the grant creates a difference. Suppose one were to say "God gave me the number five as a personal gift, and this five that he gave me added with six yields eight". Clearly, the thing God gave him, while apparently called "five" in their relationship is in fact what the rest of us knows as two. So, the proper restatement in third voice of that proposition would be that "God gave him two as a personal gift and for some reason called it five". Equivocating between "five" and "the two God gave away and for some reason called five" is obviously improper, and if driven by a profit motive plain and quite prosecutable fraud. Similarly, should the another have specifically requested, "and in the magical land where they live water boils or cools without exchange of energy", then clearly that "water" is in no proper sense water, and while the name may be used, it is used metaphorically, not properly. That "water" is in fact no more water than electromagnetic "bottles" are bottles. You could arguably fill one such "bottle" with fermions of the same "aroma", but you definitely could neither crash it against the bar nor taste the contents. In all such metaphoric contexts, the question is meaningful "you mean the water before the grant, or after ?" or directed at any one ambiguous instance, "which kind of water is this ?". Equivocating between the two is just bad reasoning, of course, except if driven by a profit motive it is, again, mere fraud.
That out of the way, the historical accident needs to be discussed where for the past fifty or so years, the intellectually broken and practically bankrupt approach to thought championed by the USG and followed by its scanti vassals and satellites has been a Ford-isation of sorts, creating perverse incentives across the board towards the publication of mere words, meaninglessly fashioned together into strings of specified lengths, without further consideration. Originally this worked acceptably for actual scienceii, but it was disastrous for humanities, which were readily refashioned into simple pseudoscience.iii
Arguably this effect was an unavoidable result of the destructuring of society following WW2, because humanities can only exist as the fruits of the superiority of the socially superior ; may not exist (indeed, may not even be meaningfully defined) in flat societies ; and in all intermediate cases their quality and general development serves well as a proxy for the hierarchy of society : the sharper the angle at the peak of the social pyramid, the more advanced the humanities it can support. Nevertheless, avoidable or not, three decades later the poisonous creatures came home to roost, and the pseudoscientific pursuits that used to be humanities infected otherwise respectable science to the degree that we're now stuck cutting out all of the "Earth science" and large swaths of medicine and biology, not to mention all the economy penned after 1940, because it's cheaper to throw out pasta in which someone's taken a dump and re-make it than to attempt and remove all the fecal matter.
Which brings us to the point of our discussion today. When confronted with pseudoscience, which is to say any text purporting to discuss scienceiv, written after 1940, either in English or by any author living in a vassal or satellite state (NATO is the name of this particular Warsaw pact) the proper approach is not to proscribe, but to ignore.
Specifically what I mean is, one shouldn't attempt to further interact with all that shitpile, for instance by trying to create lists of banned expressions, or otherwise some sort of crude implementation of a Bayesian filter or another. One should simply ignore the whole matter wholesale, and then allow the proponents to either introduce their ideas de novo, in the original manner such is handled, or otherwise work themselves dry of spittle and wither away.
This flat, unyielding ignorance-as-the-forerunner-of-oblivion is both perfectly safev and exactly the adequate pill for the poison in dicussion, because it expends very little productive effort on the part of the productive members of society, while at the same time forcing upon the unproductive the exact Gordian knot they've been trying to talk their way around (and plenty, no doubt, hoped they had succeeded). That knot is of course practice, which is to say : if I were to declare I am ignoring "all that Einstein jazz", all physics penned after 1900 or so, and then built a cathodic tube television that worked just fine without accounting for quantum effects, the trashing and bashing of Einstein fans would be all in vain : I'll just shrug my shoulders, keep building and selling my television sets and care not on whit of whatever they may write.vi Eventually they'll run out of ink, because unlike the productive system of making things, the grant seeking system relies on outside inputs to function.vii
While it's true that most objects produced and consumed in a sufficiently advanced society are ideal objects, and while it's true that most people in a socialist/welfarist society are patent idiots (who have no use for ideal objects, and so could be made to value any list of ideal objects in any arbitrary order, just like the primitive minds of the original red skins could be convinced to value the fruits of industry pretty much randomly, and in any case divorcedly from their actual market value), it still doesn't stand that the producers of worthless drivel may create a system where they may thrive that's also stable.
So, this is what is meant when one says Bitcoin is revolutionary : that the ideas it embodies, and its exact workings, the precise manner in which it wages an attrition war it can't lose against fiat currency, and the welfare state dependent upon that fiat currency, can be readily expanded to other fields. You can wage an attrition war on public idiocy on the same exact paradigm, and obtain - just as definitely and just as certainly - the same exact results : the complete, utter and unavoidable ruin of the pile of nonsense. Without any possible recourse.
PS. If the idea of throwing out 60 years' worth of pseudoscience masquerading as science seems to you unprecedented, consider that this is merely a result of your very sheltered existence. I have lived it, personally, once before, I'm not discussing imaginations and projections into the future here but mere history. Lived history. Specifically, I still remember the piles of trampled pages, knee thick, in front of various Romanian Universitary libraries, pages that before one winter made perfectly good "science", on Marxism-Leninism and Socialist Economy and Socialist Philosophy (aka Dialectic Materialism) and Socialist-everything. Then after that winter they were pulp, or more properly said, they were officially seen as the pulp that they had always been. And I remember the surprised face of one particular parasite who thought himself a "professor", being thrown out of a second floor window.
Contrary to what you may imagine, cutting off warts - while woefuly deadly to the actual wart - nevertheless does no harm to the healthy body the wart is dragging towards the grave. Romania did a lot better in twenty years after having squished this lice than in the sixty years prior, and so will you. History repeats itself, it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
Generally speaking, the sooner the when, the lower the pain.———
- Yes, I am aware you believe this constitutes "the entire world". This belief is descriptive of you, not of the world. [↩]
- In the sense that pretty much any policy works about as well for actual science, as that's a process driven by individuals not policies and as such evolves for purely individual, entirely un-politic reasons. [↩]
- There is absolutely no difference between the US school of political science and astrology, today, except for sheer complexity and volume, proxies for the ammount of money poured into it. This stands all across the board, the only difference between US pseudoeconomics and US pseudo-theatrical-studies is the money thoroughput, and if you switched that around soon enough the theatre would be "well developed" in the sense of completely empty, meaningless complexity. [↩]
- As opposed to fiction, which is entirely broken too but perhaps for different reasons, in different ways and in any case not our concern here. [↩]
- Since there's no actual value in the subject matter ignored, ignoring it is not unlike ignoring the firm convictions of the mentally ill. Such things exist, people in an asylum somewhere could go on about them at length, what difference does it make ? [↩]
- Incidentally, this is exactly how Bitcoin has in point of fact worked. In other words, it's not a speculative discussion, but merely a recounting of actual history. [↩]
- Here's a thought for all the "sustainability" scholars, jetting here and there to eat catered meals and sleep in hotels they don't own and can't afford to pay for: when are you going to come up with a "sustainable sustainability research" paradigm ? One where you manage to pay for what you yourselves, personally, consume, out of the value you yourselves personally produce ? No, finding a[nother] sugar Daddy does not count. No, no matter how you disguise it. No, it's not true that "everyone lives off a sugar Daddy. Ready for the most challenging challenge ever ?
Didn't think so. Now stfu. [↩]