[p2p-research] shots in the dark/p2p article

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Ryan Lanham wrote:
> It seems to me that you are generally discussing legitimacy.  Legitimacy is
> a big P2P issue...and a big governance issue in general.  It is also an
> issue in the philosophy of science.  There are several forms of
> legitimacy...some stem from numbers of believers, some stem from logical
> strength, some stem from cultures, faith perspectives, etc.
> 
> I believe you set up a straw man when you say there is the conventional view
> and the alternative.  The alternative has no necessary legitimacy simply
> because it differs from the conventional.  For something to be legitimate,
> it needs to expand a justification for its legitimacy instead of the
> convention.
> 
> In crackpot cases such justifications usually revert to conspiracy theories,
> theories of bad motivation (e.g. profit motives), etc. in my experience.
> That said, sometimes people do act badly to profit and sometimes there are
> conspiracies.  The challenge to being a thinking person is to sort out the
> messes.
> 
> Most people think that for something to be legitimate, it should also be
> tranparant and accountable.  That is, facts about it should be discoverable
> and poor actions should have consequences.  All these tie back to governance
> theory--still the most interesting area of P2P imho.

All great points. Thanks for making them.

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/