Craig Wright explores fallacies of compromise in new blog post

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

In his latest blog post, “Refuting “Conflict can only be resolved when both parties are prepared to compromise,” Dr. Craig Wright takes a look at the fallacies concerning two parties coming to a compromise in a situation.

The blog is full of insights that—in my opinion—have a direct relation to the truth about Bitcoin, why BSV is Bitcoin since it follows Satoshi’s original design, and why the world should not compromise to accept anything other than the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

“In democracies, for instance, a balance of ideas can be arrived at through a consensus-based process. Truth and science are not democratic processes,” says Dr. Wright before going on to cite Galileo’s discovery of the sun being at the center of the universe and the planets orbiting around it rather than the idea—that was more popular at the time—that the earth was at the center and the sun orbited around it.

“Truth is not determined by popular belief. Although none of us can achieve any result that perfects truth, we can get close,” says Dr. Wright. “Both philosophical logic and modern scientific analysis allow us to look at a variety of separate premises and to find answers that come closer and closer to the truth.”

It turned out Galileo was right about the universe, even though he was the minority opinion. It also turns out that BSV is Bitcoin, although that is not exactly the popular opinion either. However, truth is not determined by majority votes and popularity, there is a process that can be used to arrive at the truth or as close to the truth as possible, and that truth will create the best world possible—not compromise.

Why compromise isn’t optimal

“Should we consider blind obeisance to conciliation and harmony at all costs? Where, through little more than a lamentably flawed argument to the contrary, the path to appeasement overrides knowledge and science and all of the values that have created the only enduring golden age in human history, should we compromise?”

Dr. Wright asks, to which the answer is no—if knowledge and science allow us to arrive at the truth, we should not settle for appeasement. Dr. Wright goes on to cite an example in which appeasement and compromising to avoid conflict at all costs led to a world war taking place—and that’s because “when one party remains immovable, and the other is willing to compromise,” it does not lead to optimal outcomes.

Why is that the case? Because “compromise is not based on fact. It is not based on evidence….For, where a party will not accept evidence and will not openly discuss alternatives based on fact, we end merely in appeasement. Compromise does not resolve conflict; it only kicks the can down the road, and as it does, so increases the eventual force of the antagonism that must necessarily ensue.”

In Dr. Wright’s latest blog post, Refuting “Conflict can only be resolved when both parties are prepared to compromise,” you will learn why compromise is not the optimal way to resolve a conflict, which world war was the result of a prime minister deciding to compromise with a dictator, and how we can arrive at the solution closest to the truth.