Phil • Cr. Think • Science • Hist •

Explore Natural Philosophy

Wisdom Builder

Three Tidbit Stories

Relativity.

3 random tidbit stories in about 3 minutes.

1.

Relativity FAQ.

The short answer is yes, but it is a logical fallacy—specifically, the cherry-picking fallacy. Yet, it’s often how we make decisions. It’s understandable why many choose to vote based on a single issue—like candidate character, the economy, or climate change. I even do this. I tend to put believe in science as my single issue. That tends to include voting for truth, character, and those that can see evidence clearly. It’s a straightforward, pragmatic approach: you identify what’s most important to you and select the candidate who best aligns with that priority. But, is it good thinking? While it might feel logical, it’s important to understand that this approach can be flawed.

Cherry-picking is a common tendency in decision-making. It’s why a salesperson usually focuses on a specific feature and why they try to figure out what you’re looking for. The problem? If you’re unaware, cherry-picking might cause you to overlook other, or even contradictory, information.

On the plus side, cherry-picking simplifies a complex process and helps you focus on what matters most to you. However, the downside is that it can lead to a narrow perspective, making you vulnerable to manipulation or missing important context. By ignoring broader aspects, you may unknowingly embrace something that contradicts your overall values or interests. Recognizing this limitation enables a more balanced and informed approach. For example, you might vote for a candidate because they support strong immigration policies, but this might lead you to ignore other aspects of their platform, like their economic policies that favor billionaires or their lack of integrity. Being aware doesn’t mean you abandon your focus, but it does open up the opportunity to expand your view.

Beyond politics, the cherry-picking fallacy shows up everywhere! It’s a common practical shortcut. Just be aware of it and recognize when it’s useful and when it’s limiting. If your chosen point is truly the most important, go for it. However, understanding this can expand your critical thinking abilities, enriching your perspective—especially over time.

 


I wrote that Relativity FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 2 years ago.

2.

Relativity Story.

2040: 15 Years From Now (+/- 5 years)
Speculative. Informed by accelerated technological trends and empirical data.
<1 Generation From Now (from 2020 CE)

This is the self-driving EV taxi tipping point. The year EV taxis outnumber individually owned vehicles world wide. While individually owned vehicles will likely be a part of society forever, nearly everyone owning at least one is unsustainable over the long-term. A key point in this journey into the future is the year that self-driving EV taxis outnumber individually driven vehicles.

A Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) vehicle is an autonomous, electrically powered car designed to transport passengers without the need for a human driver. Equipped with advanced sensors, cameras, and artificial intelligence systems, these vehicles navigate roads, obey traffic laws, and respond to dynamic driving conditions autonomously. Primarily powered by electric batteries, they offer a sustainable alternative to traditional taxis by reducing emissions and minimizing environmental impact. As part of a broader shift towards smarter urban mobility solutions, self-driving EV taxis aim to enhance the efficiency, safety, and accessibility of public transportation systems.

 


I wrote that Relativity Story, 

and posted it to TST 6 years ago.

3.

Relativity Term.

You have many ideas you believe and a bunch you don’t. Then there are the things in between. Those are your agnostic beliefs.

The definition:

An agnostic position on a speculative idea does not pretend certainty.

Chapter 11 of 30 Philosophers defines the agnostic view.

Agnostics assert that it is impossible to either prove or disprove certain claims, such as the existence of unicorns, ghosts, or Valhalla.”

In common terms, agnosticism is a restraint: a way of saying, “I do not know enough to call this true or false.”

While there are many defined types of agnosticism, in my writing, there are only two: agnostic and explorative. An explorative agnostic withholds certainty, but explores. An apathetic agnostic does not engage in the topic. This matters because not all uncertainty is the same. 

A person can be agnostic about one claim, a skeptic on another, and a believer on yet another. That’s agnosticism in practice. For example, a person might be agnostic about Valhalla and demons. They might be skeptical of astrology’s truth claims, but may still enjoy it as personality language.

Pragmatism, by contrast, describes the broader worldview lens. The pragmatic types are the lenses a person can use to interpret the world.

Pragmatism calibrates your worldview lens, while agnosticism focuses your lens away from a specific topic.

For me, I try to live as an empirical pragmatist. On specific topics, I calibrate. For example, on string theory, I remain exploratively agnostic and find the topic fascinating. On ghosts, I’m an apathetic agnostic with a skeptical lean. When I encounter a new mystery, I use OVM to examine the believer, empiricist, and skeptic views on the topic. I then return to my empirical-pragmatic worldview for calibration. Calibration helps me decide how much confidence a topic deserves.

 


I wrote that Relativity Term, 

and posted it to TST 2 months ago.

The end. Refresh for another set.

Scroll to Top