I have to admit that the test of time is one of my faves. If something withstands the test of time (which I peg at several hundred years for an easier test, and at least 1000 if we are being strict) then I am willing to give it a hearing -- more than a hearing, actually. I want to know what there is about it that is so exciting to people.

This makes me considerably more sympathetic to alternative medicines and other "non-scientific" fields than many of my peers. The way I see it, if acupuncture has been around so long, it is because there is something to it. And I certainly don't need to know how something works to accept that it does. There's plenty of technology I use on a daily basis the functioning of which I have only the very slightest understanding of.

Coming from a background in social science, I have often felt that the test of time has often gotten the shaft, and with ill-effects. After all, we are the ones who said things like "self-esteem is the biggest key to success," as opposed to noting how character and hard work and dedication to a greater goal have been taught to young people for generations in the hopes of encouraging their success that way. Clearly there was something to that.

Interestingly, there are some fields, like economics, where the test of time stands in rather higher regard. After all, gold bugs like gold because it has been "good money for 6000 years." What's done is done because it's what's always been done. (Except when it comes to the derivatives market...)

For those of us interested in crypto, this is an interesting thought. After all, if the test of time has value, it does not make it the only test that has value. Assuming that the crypto revolution is a paradigm shift, it leads us to ask: How does the test of time stand up in times of paradigm shifts? How do we know what needs to stay and what needs to go? Is the wisdom of the past 6000 years here to stay, or will it transform, or even disappear? All tests have their limits.

That's my thought of the day.

NSB