I’m astonished by the difference in logical reasoning behind the arguments for and against bitcoin

I’m a professor of mathematics, so I pay attention to logic and basically logic only. First, I’m staggered by how many people are hostile towards bitcoin (I mean, if it’s not your jam, just move on). But I’m really amazed by how their arguments boil down to some form of name calling: “ponzi scheme”, “crypto bros”, “beanie babies”, when those comparisons don’t hold up over just a little bit of scrutiny. On the other hand, the arguments for bitcoin tend to be well reasoned and have substance. The contrast is stark to someone who only cares about logic.

Of course, the news articles play on these name calling tactics in more of a subtle, “intellectual” way to give the appearance of a substantive argument, when there is none. I guess I’m just floored by how many people are fooled by this, and how rarely people use logical reasoning or critical thinking for themselves, despite all the lip service that is paid to “critical thinking”. Even people that appear intelligent because they have a large vocabulary, good rhetorical skills, are charismatic, etc, really can’t think logically. The best they can do is parrot an argument made by someone else. Sometimes I’m jealous because I’ve never been able to do this convincingly.

Just wanted to share this observation. Guess it’s not new to me because, by teaching math to college students, I witness how many people are just not able to reason for themselves, and instead rely on other tactics, like associations, memorization, cheating (lol) to get by. It still surprises me though.