“Reason” isn’t something with extremes, normally. Events are events, the truth is in the evidence. Interpretations of the evidence can vary, but truth doesn’t vary. There’s nothing about being in the “middle” of two positions on what happened in a historical event that makes the median stance any more or less accurate than the stances themselves.
As an example, Iraq with WMD. The US line was that Iraq had WMD, the Iraqi line was that they didn’t. The Iraqi line was 100% correct and the US line was 100% fabrication.
What was I even thinking about… Oh right, reasoning is a process. You start somewhere, reason and reach a conclusion, so the middle of that is just stopping part way through the reasoning, never reaching a conclusion.
“Reason” isn’t something with extremes, normally. Events are events, the truth is in the evidence. Interpretations of the evidence can vary, but truth doesn’t vary. There’s nothing about being in the “middle” of two positions on what happened in a historical event that makes the median stance any more or less accurate than the stances themselves.
As an example, Iraq with WMD. The US line was that Iraq had WMD, the Iraqi line was that they didn’t. The Iraqi line was 100% correct and the US line was 100% fabrication.
But what if they 50% had them and 50% didn’t? Did you consider that?
Schrodingers WMD
But what if the extremes of reason are the start and the end, and the correct position is in the middle of that
I mean, the correct stance need not be bound to abstract spatial relations of stances
What was I even thinking about… Oh right, reasoning is a process. You start somewhere, reason and reach a conclusion, so the middle of that is just stopping part way through the reasoning, never reaching a conclusion.
Oh yea, makes sense!