- Ithaca Hours have been discussed here: https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/does-the-ithaca-hour-disprove-the-regression-theorem/19489/56
That link is of historical interest, as it shows that Smiling Dave is just like the rest of us, meaning not born knowing everything straight out of the box. He, too, had to learn. He, too, at one time did not grasp the finer points of Mises’ Regression Theorem.
- The bitcoin is an entirely new animal fallacy has been addresed many times. I’ll paraphrase what I wrote here:
Let us think back to high school. What was the most difficult course there? Even those who are adept at math might say they had the hardest time with high school geometry.
And what was so hard about it? For one thing, you could not toss together a string of buzzwords and get a passing grade. Faced with a proposition, you had to actually prove it, step by step, justifying each step with support.
The proof had to obey the strict rules of logic, too. You could not say Pythagoras was wrong because he is long dead, hopelessly outdated, a member of the bourgeoisie, did not have an internet connection, or is an entirely new animal. That didn’t cut it. You had to address the idea, not the man.
And when you addressed the idea, you had to show exactly why the idea is wrong. At what line of a proof is there a mistake, and what is the mistake, exactly?
Many people had no clue in high school geometry. They, of course, will also have no clue about AE and bitcoin arguments, because the structure of AE and of a bitcoin argument is similar to that of geometry. It is composed of statements backed up by step by step logical proofs.
Even those who excelled in geometry often found that the kind of thinking that went on in geometry class was never used in the real world, as seen on TV. No politician, for example, ever discusses an issue using logic. Instead they use every kind of argument that would have guaranteed them an F in geometry class. I imagine many college courses work the same way. One learns that tossing together buzzwords will earn one respect, and that actually thinking things through earns one failure, if one reaches conclusions disliked by the teacher.
Thus, the role model of proper thinking, seen only in geometry class, was drowned out by a flood of role models that did not use logical thinking. Pretty sad, pretty pathetic, but pretty common.
So guys, I welcome all comments. But don’t be surprised if my reply will be that you please show me exactly where the flaw lies in my thinking, and why it is a flaw. No more of this “Mises is dead and did not have an internet connection, so he must be wrong” stuff. Get used to logical thinking. Be liberated.
Summing it all up, if you want to show why Mises Regression Theorem does not apply to bitcoin becasue it is a “new animal”, do the adult thing. Summarize your understanding of the theorem. This is an important step, universally used in serious discussions. If you get it right, we can then take the rest of your argument seriously. If you get it wrong, we can mock you.
Next, summarize the proof of the theorem. Number the steps of the theorem, so we can grasp what you will do in the final step, to wit;
Show which line exactly of the proof is wrong because “bitcoin is a new animal”. Also, explain clearly why that line is wrong.
Guys, this is basic rational thinking. It is the gift of the Western World to humanity. It goes on every day in serious dicussions.
One example. Note that every single time, without exception, when Mises in HA or any of his other writings dismisses a competing theory, he always states it, sums up all the arguments in its favor, and then shows why it is wrong.