Reductio Ad Absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum, in Latin, means "reduction to absurdity."
The concept dates back to before Socrates, and Aristotle made a big deal about it when discussing logic. It would seem that resorting to absurdity is a well-traveled road for human beings wishing to hold onto illogical beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence and common sense.
Here on Steemit, one often hears the argument:
"Well, quality is subjective."
Which is, of course, true. But it's also a cop out. Context matters.
If a $1,000 post featuring a can of tuna and entitled, "Mmmm," engenders yet another tirade against bidbots, some enlightened mind can be counted upon to trot out the, "Well, quality is subjective" argument, as if, perhaps, said can of tuna, and its entitlement, was honestly anyone's idea of art or articulation. The idea, I suppose, is that reducing such an exemplar of Reward Pool rape to a philosophical assertion, will somehow lessen the egregiousness of the crime and thereby negate the need to do anything about it.
Rational & Irrational Numbers ... and the Unreality of Reality
In mathematics, numbers can be categorized into groups of numbers possessing certain qualities.
For example, a number can be either Rational or Irrational. (As yours truly is a poet, you might wish to start thinking about "double entendres" so as to get ahead of the argument.)
Without wading into the weeds of middle school math, a Rational Number is any number that can be expressed as a quotient or fraction of two integers and which, in decimal form, either terminates or begins to repeat.
For example: 1/2 = 0.5 (the numbers terminate)
and
1/3 = 0.33333... (the 3 repeats forever).
Contrarily, an Irrational Number, in decimal form, never ends and never repeats.
Perhaps the most famous Irrational Number is pi, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to it's diameter. Said another way, if you take the distance around the outside of a circle (circumference), and divide it by the distance from one side to the other (diameter), you always get a fixed ratio: pi >>> 3.1415...
Pi goes on forever, and never repeats, and that's what makes it Irrational.
Of course, there are those who always have to be difficult.
"No thing can ever really be known and therefore there are no Absolute Truths. How do you know pi goes on forever and never repeats?"
And so, we stick pi in a computer and run it out to a hundred decimal places.
"Well, how do you know it doesn't end or repeat at 101?"
And so, we run it out to a thousand decimal places. Same retort. And so a million decimal places. And then a billion. Recently, a Japanese super-computer ran pi out to a trillion decimal places. No termination or repeating.
"Well, how do you know it doesn't repeat at a trillion and one?"
Technically speaking, the objectors are correct. Because numbers go on forever, you can never absolutely prove that adding one more wouldn't negate pi being an Irrational Number. But this process of "infinite regression" could be applied to anything and it's what Aristotle was complaining about ... technical arguments that result in self-evident absurdities.
Obsession with semantics creates the pedantic, and the pedantic precludes having an intelligent conversation about anything. Nothing is ever real or unreal. People with such proclivity will insist a thing is true even when the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence suggests that it is not. It is a hallmark of "ideological thinking," about which, alas, I find myself writing extensively.
It's Becoming a Cultural Phenomenon
Steemit is but a microcosm of the world-at-large. At some point in the not-so-distant past, a non-trivial portion of society decided that they'd go for broke. When they claim that "nothing can ever be known for certain," they mean NOTHING.
"Unicorns and centaurs don't, and have never, existed."
"How do you know for certain? Ancient literature is replete with references to both."
It's true, we don't know for "absolute certain." Indeed, here's a song from my childhood that explains precisely what happened to the unicorns.
As so, given this most recent propensity for torturing logic, we now have an "infinite number of genders." Of course, there's not an iota of evidence supporting such an assertion and there's a mountain of evidence contradicting it. Human beings, like all mammals, are sexually dimorphic ... we reproduce via male/female coupling. And, for the entire history of the English language, one's "sex" and "gender" were synonymous. No more. Some genius professor of Gender Studies decided that no, "sex" is biological while "gender" is merely a "social construct."
How did he/she/it (never assume anyone's gender) stumble upon this paradigm-upending insight? Metaphysical musings. Case closed.
And, despite the 100+ easily identifiable physiological differences between male and female brains, as described in every medical textbook on the planet ... did you know that there is actually NO DIFFERENCE between male and female brains? And did you know that quoting page numbers of the aforementioned medical textbooks in protest, makes you a misogynistic sexist (and probably a Nazi too).
There's a now-politically-incorrect expression that we used to often hear: "Men and women's brains are just wired differently." Well, quite literally, they are: Here is a picture of the Connectome (source: The Independent), a map of how neurons are connected to one another in both men and women's brains:
This is no trivial matter. Synaptic connections are at the very core of how brains function.
And those classical Greek sculptures of naked men and women ... most people easily identify them as being "art." Some number of fellows, over a span of centuries, spent an inordinate amount of time carving them out of marble, one chisel stroke at a time, in elevation of the human form. Similarly, most people can readily identify, "Debbie Does Dallas" as "pornography" by the title alone. Similarities in subject matter are distinguished between using context.
But not the ideologically-possessed pedantics. They argue that everything is subjective and that any perceived qualitative differences are but mirages, cognitive deceptions perpetrated, and perpetuated, by an Oppressor Class upon the brainwashed masses. To what end that such a conspiracy is waged is never explained other than an amorphous, yet still strident, allegation of tyranny.
Everyone's "Normal"
One of the central motivations that drives such thinking is the "equalization of everything." If there are no "rights," then there can be "no wrongs" ... and hence, every kind of belief and behavior, a priori, is equally valid. If there's "no normal," than "no one can be abnormal" ... and hence, ethically, everyone must be treated the same, irrespective of circumstance.
But the employment of even a modicum of common sense tells us that none of this is true. Indeed, that it's drivel.
People are very different. Individuals have a wide spectrum of strengths and weaknesses, interests and aptitudes, likes and dislikes. And, some of those differences fall along easily-identifiable fault lines such as gender. Categorization by characteristics is not a crime, but merely an observation of facts. But the pedantically predisposed use semantics to try to cripple critical thinking. And the primary weapon in their war on reason is the control of language.
Let's examine the word, "normal" in context of a "Bell Curve of Normal Distribution."
A succinct definition from Investopedia:
A bell curve is the most common type of distribution for a variable, and due to this fact, it is known as a normal distribution. The term "bell curve" comes from the fact that the graph used to depict a normal distribution consists of a bell-shaped line. The highest point on the curve, or the top of the bell, represents the most probable event in a series of data, while all other possible occurrences are equally distributed around the most probable event, creating a downward-sloping line on each side of the peak.
Standard deviations are calculated after the mean is calculated and represent a percentage of the total data collected. For example, if a series of 100 test scores are collected and used in a normal probability distribution, 68% of the 100 test scores should fall within one standard deviation above or below the mean. Moving two standard deviations away from the mean should include 95% of the 100 test scores collected, and moving three standard deviations away from the mean should represent 99.7% of the 100 test scores. Any test scores that are extreme outliers, such as a score of 100 or 0, would be considered long-tail data points and lie outside of the three standard deviation range.
"Normal" is a statistical average and "normality" describes those data points that closely cluster around such average.
As long as the Bell Curve applies to economics, finance or high school test scores, no one in their right mind objects to its use in graphically representing "patterns within reality," and to those patterns, assigning meaning. We could, for example, plot the post-payouts of Steemians by wallet size and everyone would undoubtedly find such graphical illustration informative (and probably infuriating).
But as soon as we apply those same statistical tools to issues relating to LGBT, male/female differences, race, IQ, etc., people start losing their minds.
"The statistics lie. Bell Curves are a tool of the Oppressors."
But understanding the nature of reality, and being able to accurately articulate its characteristics, is critically important to critical thinking, and for that matter, solving problems.
Statistically, being straight is "normal" (96.5% of the population) and being LGBT is "abnormal" (3.5% of the population). This is self-evident to anyone with eyes. And yet, many activists will insist that "being gay is every bit as 'normal' as being straight." But it's not if you can count. The activists are merely attempting to contort, for ideological purposes, what the word "normal" means. Accurately representing reality is not an act of prejudice, and misrepresenting it, is not an act of moral superiority. The former is an effort to reflect Truth, while the latter, an attempt to manufacture it.
The same could be said for IQ, essentially a measure of the speed with which a person can mentally manipulate abstract ideas and information. This is referred to as General Intelligence, or "g," in academic circles. Simply, some people are better at dealing with abstractions than others. Such fact is obvious from observations in everyday life. And yet, the ideologues have launched a jihad against IQ.
"It's not accurate. It's prejudiced against the socio-economically disadvantaged or those who grew up in a household where less sophisticated language was spoken."
But it's not true.
Hundreds of millions of IQ tests have been administered over a century, and in almost every country on the planet. In psychology, and indeed all of science, one would be hard-pressed to find any body of research that utilizes a larger sample size. And, IQ tests that don't employ language at all (they use figures, shapes and diagrams) result in outcomes nearly identical to those of their verbal counterparts.
Confronted with such overwhelming evidence, the ideologues started inventing adjectives to distort the meaning of the word "intelligence."
"Well, General IQ is only one measure of intelligence. There's also Emotional Intelligence, Naturalist Intelligence, Musical Intelligence, Existential Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence, Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence, Linguistic Intelligence, Spatial Intelligence, Intra-Personal Intelligence, etc."
Now everyone gets to be a "genius" at something. That last gem, Intra-Personal Intelligence, is all about being "self-smart." It's hard to imagine anyone not doing well on that test.
"Mr. Quill, what is your name?
"Quill."
"100% correct. You are a genius."
The chanting of the now-religious-like mantras "Diversity" and "Inclusivity" begins, and everyone's suddenly qualified, and entitled, to attend Harvard.
The problem is what happens when they get there: The kids with "General Intelligence" 3-4 standard deviations above normal, otherwise referred to as valedictorians, are going to murder those with a similar outstandingness in "Existential Intelligence." The Existentialists eventually drop out, feeling like utter failures and with their self-esteem in tatters. Had they instead attended a college that taught at a level commensurate with their IQ, they would have had a much better chance of success, as they would have been competing against their intellectual peer-group.
These other "so-called intelligences" are what we used to call aptitudes or talents or personality traits. But the activists, as the High-Priests of the Theater of the Absurd, decided they needed to co-opt and contort the meaning of the word "intelligence," just as they did with the word "gender," thereby making the terms meaningless ... by making everyone "equal," despite the evidence of their "inequality."
The Emperor Has No Clothes
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this phenomenon is that, like the townspeople in the famous children's fable, "The Emperor Has No Clothes," most people remain silent in face of such self-evident silliness for fear of being "politically incorrect." And hence, sensibilities, absent of sense, are being incorporated in school curricula and embedded into laws and cultural mores.
We all know it's nonsense, but pretend as if it weren't.
A Special Treat ... History in the Making
As a poet, I have become concerned by the ever-spiraling "genres of poetry." If your artistic creation involves words in anything other than a grammatically and syntactically correct sentence (prose), you're now a "poet."
Instead of fighting it though, I've decided to join the party.
I am, therefore, here-and-now, announcing a new genre of poetry called, "Misspelled Preposition Poetry."
Below is the first poem of the genre, entitled, "The":
You may have noticed that in the poem I misspelled the word "the," and "the" is a preposition ... hence the name of the genre. The (no pun intended) creativity required to extract meaning from the mundane is what makes me an "artiste" and my work what is commonly referred to as an artistic tour de force. Which is French, and therefore important.
Soon, I anticipate that millions will be quoting, verbatim, my poem in their everyday writings, including a plethora of non-spell-checked Steemit posts. Respecting the latter, if you'd like to quote my poem, please do, but there will be a small copyright royalty of 1 SBD per usage. You may deposit your royalty payment directly into my wallet.
Remember ... poetry is subjective.
Quill
You guys know the drill. Be verbose ... but articulate.
And remember ...
Go Love A Starving Poet
For God's sake ... they're starving!