- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Alt text:
“Some people say light is waves, and some say it’s particles, so I bet light is some in-between thing that’s both wave and particle depending on how you look at it. Am I right?” “YES, BUT YOU SHOULDN’T BE!”
Ok, but let’s realize that you’re not necessarily the one who’s defining the spectrum of options; or put another way, there’s not an objective spectrum of options.
For instance, in the case of Israel and Gaza, you could define the leftmost bracket as “give Israel to the Palestinians” or “the second-state solution” or just “a cease-fire,” and likewise the rightmost bracket could be “let Israel keep the war going but let civilians out through Egypt” through “Israeli settlement of Gaza” all the way up to “glass Gaza.” Depending on who’s talking, and how extreme each person is in the discussion, the most humane solution might not be in the middle at all.
I’m not seeing a conflict here. The point I’m making is that the middle ground is not necessarily in the middle of any two given opinions, because the spectrum is wider than that. And also that the middle is not necessarily the best, just worth evaluating.
It’s not a conflict. What I’m trying to say is that what people hear when you say you want to “evaluate the middle option” is entirely dependent upon the options presented in the argument, which is why the caricature is so common.