 Let me share with you a fallacy that I've coined. It's called the modernist fallacy and it goes like this My theories about the world are imprecise and blurry But that's because reality itself is imprecise and blurry My descriptions of the world are fuzzy, but they're an accurate description of a fuzzy world You see the modernist fallacy everywhere It's very in vogue. Some people invoke it when they're trying to talk about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics Which supposedly says something like reality isn't in one particular state or another. It's in both and neither at the same time It's a kind of probability cloud that isn't one way or another Sometimes you see this with logic. There's an actual Attempted making logic fuzzy called fuzzy logic which says well, you see true and false are actually too binary It's more of a spectrum. You can have 0.5 or 0.6 true not just 100% true or 100% false Let me give you a popular example. I heard the other day goes like this There are two different states that the human being can be in sober and drunk But we run into a problem of a continuum here because what happens when an Individual who is sober has one drop of alcohol. They drink the one drop. Well, they're not drunk So then they drink then they have one more drop of alcohol Well, two drops of alcohol means they aren't drunk and they keep going one drop at a time and they don't go from Sober to drunk they kind of go from sober to drunk and not drunk at the same time Amdigua is blurry reality and then some point they reach drunk One more example of popular ones with color. What is the this objective boundary between white and red? Well, somewhere in the middle you have red and not red. It's kind of kind of a pinkish But as you go farther along the spectrum, it's a different color, but it's the same color really because reality is blurry Anyway, you get to this a lot in Circles of what I call irrationalist people that try to argue that reality is unknowable There are paradoxes and contradictions all around us So let me give you my resolution to these problems There's the exact opposite of the modernist fallacy It says reality is the way that it is and it isn't the way that it isn't and if you have some Blurriness, that's because you have a blurry theory. It's reflective of an imprecise and incorrect theory when you have Ambiguity, it's not reflective of an ambiguous world. So for example with the colors Well, what is the objective boundary between white and red? Well, there is none So just because we have different shades of red doesn't mean that red is ambiguous in the world It's it's reflective of how words work We have general conceptual boundaries that we put about around discrete colors just because those We have a certain range of colors that we call red doesn't mean that in the world Red is multiple things at the same time. It's not that's just different ways of describing Slightly different phenomena in the world same by the drunk example No, when you have one drop of alcohol, it doesn't mean you're drunk, but it means you're exactly one drop drunk Then your two drops drunk three drops drunk every point along the way is absolute and discrete and what whatever Threshold we cross we're saying now you are actually drunk is just a linguistic convention. It's just a concept It's wherever you want to put it along the spectrum You can be more drunk or less drunk Continuums are about Continuums and language about how we describe reality. They're not about Continuums in the world doesn't even make any sense another popular example will be something like the liar's paradox Is it true? Is it false? No, no, the modernist says it is true and false But it is true and it's not the case that it's true and well that just is it's inescapable and hey It's a contradiction. We have to accept it No, if it's the case that we bumped into something that we think is true and not true at the same time We go. Oh, okay. That's the problem with our language. What's going wrong? What's the funky mistake and our language? I have a little resolution if you've seen it on this YouTube channel how to resolve the liar's paradox It's a few minutes long. I have a little bit additional explanation of my book square one the foundations of knowledge I'm working on another book right now. That's gonna be a full a full length resolution of all our paradox But it's just saying okay Let's not accept this modernist fallacy that we've bumped into some kind of contradiction in our concepts And we go. Oh, wow. Look at that a contradiction in the world. There's a great Joke by Mitch Hedberg the comedian where he's talking about why all of the pictures of Bigfoot are blurry He said, oh, I know what's going on Bigfoot is blurry It's brilliant. It's brilliant and it is the modernist fallacy that instead of thinking The camp that you're taking the picture with a camera and it's shaky and you've got a blurry picture of reality People go. Oh, no, no the all the pictures of Bigfoot are perfectly precise and Bigfoot is blurry in the world You have a clear picture of something that is kind of smooched and not the way that it actually is This is I think Often the height of arrogance and silliness when you just step back for one second ago Okay, what's what's more plausible clear picture of a blurry world or a blurry picture of a clear world? I think the answer is pretty obvious