Tidbits 2.0

 Not sure where I found this pic, but it's lovely. And blogs look cooler with pics breaking up ideas....i think.

So only 2 topics today.

Topic 1: Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence.

So I am currently watching this video:

We did it. We found extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims! pic.twitter.com/OLNAvvYsso

— InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones (@InspiringPhilos) June 27, 2023

And while I'm certain that Michael will destroy this point the example was given that, "For instance..." If you say you have a cat in your garden I'll just believe you because that doesn't violate what we know about the universe, but if you tell you have a dragon in your garden, I'll need more proof.

This paraphrase because I don't feel like transcribing, but you can find it articulated at 1:15 in the video.

So to prove you have a cat or a dragon, literally requires the same proof. You would escort the person to the garden and show them the cat or the dragon.

But dragons don't exist Pipp. True...ish. But we are talking about the level of proof that a thing exists. And for the described scenario the proof is the same.

But, what if when you arrive at the garden there isn't any cat or dragon to be found. The person might say, "It was just here." and then we go on with believing the person.

Lets say we get to the area described and when you look at the "garden" where the cat is, its just a bunch of cardboard cut outs of plants held up by strings and sticks. You might think that's weird but you may also excuse the word use because even if the person who said, "cats in the garden" didn't take you to a garden as you understand it, you might be inclined to forget this word usage and just believe them anyway.

If however, when you arrived at the garden there was nothing garden-esk about it. You might forgive the word use again, but I would wager that if the cat were not there, you'd immediately begin to doubt that person had a cat.

However, we are built in with this skepticism. The proof we require for belief is that reality lines up with details. 

And so you follow the dragon guy back to the garden and you find an area with squashed plants, disheveled dirt, and you see other objects in the area that look like an elephant had run around the area tossing a cow. 

There is no dragon to be found, but it starts to feel like maybe this person is telling you the truth. After all dragons are huge and can fly, so the fact that the dragon isn't there no longer is the slam dunk doubt you thought it would be.

So what we see here is that regardless of the level of the claim, extraordinary or common place, the proof remains the same. We expect the details to line up with reality.

Topic 2: The paradox of intolerance.

Can I just get this off my chest. This is the stupidest thing smart people believe. They get off the thought train right before the thought finalizes then demonize anyone who disagrees with this paradoxes viability for reason as being one of the intolerant.

The paradox of intolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

So here is my problem, The people that suggested this stopped before allowing the thought to fully mature, because if the tolerance of intolerance leads to the oppression of tolerance...then the intolerance of intolerance will lead to the acceptance of intolerance. Therefore it must mean that only tolerant people tolerating other tolerant people promotes tolerance. This is a tautological fact that defies reality. 

And its a necessary conclusion.

It'd be like adding salt into water. For a moment, the salt only touches some of the water molecules, but in time you would call all the water salty.

Therefore what would follow is that in order to keep the water clean, no foreign substance will be allowed, and this type of xenophobia would then become common place. "Waters Only. Salt gets served around back."

Offended yet? Good! You should be. Because all it takes is the label of 'intolerant' for you to be the victim of some revitalized horrors.

So following the analogy then only water promotes water. Which is true in one sense...that it will. But in the sense that you are trying to promote the characteristics of water it cannot make what is already wet...wet.

Using this analogy still what we see is that only supreme wetness can dilute the salt so that it becomes wet also while the water under those conditions would not be considered "salty." 

And back to our buzz words. Instead what we see is that tolerant people being maximally tolerant in the face of maximal intolerance is the only thing that breeds tolerance. See Martin Luther King Jr. See Jesus.

So what we really want to avoid is homogeny of equal parts intolerance and tolerance. At that point we the only thing that settles the water to be water and salt to be salt is time.

The Paradox of Intolerance prescribes such a homogeny. 

Does this mean we accept anything that comes our way? Whatever worldview you have is cool? No. But if you got to be salty about one thing, make sure you're wet about a bunch more. MLK was salty about equal rights and the abolition of Jim Crow laws. He was moist about loving your neighbor, the unity before God, the value of every person regardless of the color of their skin.

Those who push this Paradox of Intolerance are salty about all the things. Don't be like them.