u/burly_protector

I suppose if I were a contractor and a client had a totally tore up house - a real fixer-upper - that I would be stoked, right? I’d be like “well let’s start with the foundation, that’s got a huge crack in it, the studs have termites, the roof is leaking, there’s like this weird blue awning on the front porch, that looks terrible, we’ll just rip that out.” And I’d be happy because I would know that I had guaranteed work for a long time… like, this place is MESSED UP.

Anyway, do you think therapists feel the same way when a lady walks into their office with a “Queers for Palestine” shirt on?

The Paradox of Proof

Online discussions and arguments often end in a position where Person A makes a claim and Person B says, “what’s your source?” In most cases, this is merely a rhetorical tactic, even though it may not be purely intentional. The issue is that the source will invariably not meet the standard already harbored by the person asking for the proof. This is because the proof will necessarily come from a source that will be antithetical to the narrative of Person B and therefore be inadmissible as “proof.” This is because of the confirmation bias feedback system that exists for most research or news sources that exist in modern-day mass media. That is, entities only produce information that their audience will agree with.

People already know which entities they trust because most news sources, even supposedly non-partisan sources like AP and Reuters, have an obvious political bias. Most of these biases give an impression to most observers and therefore become the in-group for their list of acceptable sources.

Furthermore, most research organizations are funded by people with a built-in preference for the results of the research. And more specifically, most research that could yield a politically non-conformist answer will never be funded in the first place. In most cases, if a wealthy entity fears that they might not get the answer they want, then they will never fund the study in the first place.

So you’re left with the following exchange:

Person A - Makes claim.

Person B - Where’s your proof?

Person A - Here it is.

Person B - Well of course THAT source would say THAT thing, because they’re biased.

The question is not even if the proof being offered is biased, the fact is that in virtually every case, the only source of proof will be from an entity that Person B will deem inadmissible on the grounds that the entity is biased against them.

In practicality, there is almost zero chance that an entity will exist that will:

A. Publish findings contrary to the opinion of Person B while 

B. Simultaneously be from a source that Person B would accept.

Therefore, no acceptable proof will exist such that Person B will be willing to change their mind. 

My main regret is that I never got to go to the pilot taping of a half hour sitcom for NBC back in like 1985 as a focus group audience member.

In my dream, it’s really bad and me and my buddy are standing in line waiting to get out and I say “Sitcom? More like a Shitcom? Amirite?!?”

And then everyone claps.