A couple of days ago I received a letter from a very, very rich guy whom we’ll call Mr. Tsouris. Since this was not one of those rambling 6-page screeds that go straight to the wastebasket (even if they’re from C4L), I read it. It was a solicitation on behalf of a more intelligent and humane drug policy. Nothing wrong with that, of course! --and a refreshing change from the collectivist causes Mr. Tsouris usually supports.
The thing is, his second paragraph consisted of a single sentence that embodies just about the phoniest false premise ever devised. Tsouris wrote, “It was an idea I first encountered studying philosophy at the London School of Economics: We can prove what is not true, but we cannot say conclusively what is true.” No, no, Jorgie boy. You got it all wrong!
You actually got it backwards. You cannot prove a negative (for instance that neither God nor your kid’s imaginary playmate exists) but people every day, all over the world, prove positive things true by mathematics, logic, and the scientific method. Could Tsouris’s false premise be at the heart of what’s wrong with so much Progressivist thought? Is that why so many of their arguments are loopy, loose, and lacking logic? Does that explain the double-standards, hypocrisy, and non-sequiturs that form so much of their thinking? Or is Tsouris’s false premise only an effect, not a cause, of collectivist “thought”?