So, I’ve been really good about posting every Monday…and for the twenty people who read my blog yesterday I apologize for the lack of post. My excuse is pretty good, though: I was out hunting unicorn.
I know what you’re thinking, but just because there isn’t any evidence of unicorns existing doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
So, I’m out hunting unicorn with my hunting partner when the subject turns to Michael Moore. He immediately disparages Moore for wanting being fat, a Socialist, and wanting a Totalitarian government. I respond back that I didn’t think his weight was relevant to his politics and that he was neither a Socialist nor did he desire a totalitarian government.
This is what he was saying as I lined up my arrow with the space between my prey’s eyes, “For Michael Moore’s vision to be satisfied, we would need a much larger and more powerful government. Whether the evidence is there to support the description ‘totalitarian’ is debatable. But that debate would be more about semantics than anything else. He may not state it publicly, but this is what I think he really wants. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Unfortunately the weight of his words struck me just as I let my arrow fly and it lodged itself, not between the eyes of a unicorn, but in the leg of a jogger. You see in my research into unicorns it seemed that the best way to hunt them was to take your bow and arrow to the woods, but as a New Yorker I didn’t have access to woods other than Central Park.
I know what you’re thinking, but just because there isn’t any evidence of unicorns living in Central Park doesn’t mean they don’t live in Central Park.
So I’m sitting in a police car thinking about what my friend had said, and it suddenly occurred to me that he might be wrong. Perhaps absence of evidence really was evidence of absence. It was when the police officer told me that the jogger had died of blood loss when I realized that perhaps you should have evidence before following a possibly dangerous idea to fruition.
I want to thank my friend because before having this paradigm shift, it seemed plausible to justify any action with the argument, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Suddenly it made sense to me why the Nazis were wrong. There is no evidence to show that the Aryan Nation was not the master race, so I always figured that didn’t prove that they weren’t the master race. Now I realize that justification of the holocaust was flawed.
Suddenly it made sense to me why George W. Bush was misguided. There was no evidence to show that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, but I figured that didn’t prove that they didn’t have them. Now I realized that justification of the invasion of Iraq was flawed.
Suddenly it made sense to me why the crusade against socialized medicine made no freaking sense what-so-ever. There is no evidence that instituting a system of health care where elected lawmakers control the health industry rather than for-profit insurance companies will lead us to a totalitarian government, but I figured that it probably would anyway. Now I realize that people who think that it will you crazy tactics in justifying their opinions.
Evidence of absence is evidence of absence. Logically evidence of absence is not proof of absence, but to use this to justify presence of anything is crazy talk.
If you ever use this rational to back up your political opinions, then your politics are likely flawed.
You probably won’t believe me, but I…for one…am going to give up believing in unicorns.