A FUN THOUGHT EXERCISE...
From X (Twitter) posters, Katharine Brodsky and Bret Weinstein:
I stumbled upon this fascinating thought exercise which comes to us from one of my favorite thinkers, Dr. Bret Weinstein. It casts a spotlight on the ever widening gap between the thought resistant masses and the enlightened few. I’ve been following this exceptionally logical thinker from the COVID years to the present and I’m frankly envious of his skill at not only critical thinking, but his remarkable ability to articulate his thought processes to most lay people in an easy to consume and digest manner.
See if you agree with his response to X poster, Katharine Brodsky who proclaims the following:
Whenever someone says "they" are doing something or "they" control something, that person should be pressed to ask who the "they" that's being referenced is so that they name the system or specific entities rather than hiding behind vagueness.
Very often this is the result of imprecise thinking rather than malice. Someone has a 'feeling' that a system is flawed, but lacks the knowledge or understanding to name it. Or has suspicion towards particular individuals, but is fearful of naming them because the person lacks the ability to argue their case.
And then of course there are the conspiracy theorists.
And now, here’s Bret’s response which mirrors my own thinking:
Conspiracy theorist here.
When someone says “they” it is fine to ask if this person knows who “they” are likely to be, but it is not indicative of a logical error if the person advancing the hypothesis can’t name “them.”
If the inability to name “them” was logically invalidating, then anyone who can conceal their identity is in a position to, not only get away crimes, but to force us to accept a deliberately constructed, false pattern of evidence—where they frame a patsy or fall guy—no matter how shoddy the cover story.
If the “Who are they?” test were valid, we wouldn’t even be able to advance a competing hypothesis so it could be compared with the official story relative to the evidence. The police couldn’t investigate a crime before identifying a suspect. Science itself becomes impossible, where we often identify a consequence and then go looking for a cause based on competing hypotheses.
The “Who are they?” test is tailored-made to protect powerful entities with the capacity to commit the most consequential crimes, such as political assassinations and false flag attacks. These are the most important crimes to identify, and we mustn’t allow our hands to be tied with a generic, reflexive fallacy.
Positively brilliant, Bret!