Bitcoin: The Ignition Of A Scientific Revolution
It is a rare event for humanity to experience a change in worldview. You could say that the last time such an event truly took place was at the end of the Middle Ages — with the development of the telescope and the printing press, people learned that the Earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around. These discoveries led to increasing distrust in the power of the time: the church.
With the crumbling of these old institutions, this dark period came to an end. A time of rebirth and prosperity would follow in the ensuing Golden Age, in which freedom, science and trade reigned supreme.
Today, we stand on the eve of a new revolution in the history of mankind. A scientific revolution in money: Bitcoin. The invention of absolutely scarce money is a paradigm shift and an anomaly within the realm of Keynesian economics. The technology is capable of destroying old power structures and returning power to the sovereign individual. A Digital Renaissance, resulting in the separation of money and state.
The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions
Philosopher of science Thomas S. Kuhn came up with a framework in 1962 to characterize and identify scientific revolutions in his book “The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions.” Kuhn describes how science does not move linearly, but undergoes a revolution every once in a while in order to progress.
We distinguish two phases in the progress of science. The first is called “normal science,” in which new discoveries are made on the basis of the prevailing worldview (model/theory), also called a “paradigm.” In normal science, incremental steps are taken by finding “puzzle pieces” within the current framework of thinking. However, over time, observations are made that are inexplicable within the current paradigm, the so-called “anomalies.” These gradually accumulate, creating a crisis in the paradigm, and the need for a better model increases. This is the phase of revolutionary science.
This second phase is often accompanied by a fierce battle between supporters of the new theory and defenders of the old. The struggle arises because the two sides base themselves in contrasting models in which they try to explain reality. The views are incommensurable.
A winning paradigm is a model that is “better” at explaining the world. This is expressed in a higher predictable power and applicability in the development of new technology. For example, Einstein was able to predict that gravity can bend light thanks to his theory of relativity. In addition, the new knowledge would be used for applications such as GPS satellites and nuclear energy.
New paradigms are often brought forward by creative and contrary personalities who haven’t been immersed in the old system for their whole lives. As a result, they have a fresher view of the whole and naturally think more “outside of the box.” Old paradigms die hard, and often have only disappeared when literally the last adherents have died.
After a new paradigm is accepted, the process starts over again with normal science and steps can be taken in solving puzzles within the new and improved framework.
The most important lesson we can learn from Kuhn is that our current worldview has an expiration date and one day we will experience a crisis in which we have to look for a better perspective. It is the arrogance of any civilization to think that we are now at the peak of our understanding, as we can only point back to a history when people held an inferior view. But this moment will also one day become history, and will be looked back on it with astonishment.
Separation Of Church And State
A well-known paradigm shift that took place 500 years ago was the move from geocentrism to heliocentrism, i.e., the perspective shifted from the earth to the sun as the center of space. This shift was due to the invention of the telescope. This new instrument made it possible to make observations that did not correspond to the ideas of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church still had a lot of power at that time and denounced everything and everyone who was undermining that power.
The Printing Press
Printing was an important catalyst in the spread of astronomical knowledge at the end of the Dark Age. Invented in 1440 by goldsmith Johannes Gutenberg, the printing press made it possible to distribute books at scale. It replaced the manuscript (handwritten documents) and significantly reduced the cost of owning a book.
The invention would change the structure of a society in which the new middle class could increase its literacy. It would lead to the Reformation and further crumbling of ecclesiastical power. For example, the distribution of printed Bibles called into question the authority of the church, as people were now able to interpret the word of God for themselves. A result was the criticizing of indulgences, because these were nowhere mentioned in the holy book of God.
Heliocentrism
Another book that came off the press and caused a stir was the book “De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium” (“On The Revolution Of The Heavenly Bodies”) by mathematician Nicolaus Copernicus. The book was published just before his death, because he was convinced that it would cause havoc. He wouldn’t be wrong, and a fellow astronomer from Italy would have to defend his position some decades later and feel the heat of the church.
The discovery that the sun is at the center of space was a classic paradigm shift. The geocentric model had created many anomalies over time, including the inexplicable retrograde motions of the planets from earth’s perspective. The entire model was very complex and not very elegant and left a lot of questions unanswered. Also, its predictive power was far from great. The new paradigm would bring a more elegant model, explain the retrograde movements of planets and would form a better tool for making astronomical predictions.
Copernicus’ heliocentric model would not be taken seriously until the next century due to the breakthrough in astronomical instruments: the telescope. Patented in 1608 by the Dutchman Hans Lippershey, but copied by the Italian Galileo Galilei the following year. Galileo would make all kinds of new discoveries, including that the moon is not perfectly round and the existence of the Medici stars, better known as the moons of Jupiter. The observations would be published in the pamphlet “Sidereus Nuncius” in 1610, which would be widely distributed by the printing press. Galileo also set the precedent for experimental reproducibility and encouraged other astronomers to verify his findings.
Galileo Galilei, source
The first criticisms and skepticism were not due for long. The observations were dismissed as lens defects at first. Verifiability was still low at that time, as there were few telescopes in circulation. But as time passed, Galileo gained more and more support from other scientists, such as Johannes Kepler who confirmed his observations.
Before the publication of the pamphlet, the church had only accepted the heliocentric model as mathematical and hypothetical. However, the edition of “Sidereus Nuncius” presented the heliocentric model as factual and not hypothetical. With this, Galileo put himself in direct opposition to the written word of God and therefore in conflict with the church. This would lead to a Roman Inquisition in 1616 in which the astronomer had to defend himself against the holy institute. As a result, Galileo was censored and banned from discussing heliocentrism. Copernicus’ book, “De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium,” would also be banned and the model would be labeled as foolish and absurd.
The astronomer would stay far away from this controversy for a long time. He had sensed what Copernicus feared: reprisals from the Pope. But in 1632, he dared it again when Pope Urban VIII took office, as he was friends with this ex-cardinal. Galilei published “Dialogo Sopra I Due Massimi Sistemi Del…
