Not really. The idea that reality lies _in_ the middle is fairly coherent. It's not, on it's face, absolutely true but there are and infinite number of options between two outcomes so the odds are overwhelmingly in the favor that the truth lies somewhere in between. Is either side totally right about every single point of contention between them? Probably not, so the answer is likely in the middle. The fallacy is a lot easier to see when you're arguing about one precise point. In that case, someone is probably right and wrong. But, in cases where a side is talking about a complex event with a multitude of data points, both extremes are likely not completely correct and the answer does, indeed, lie in between the extremes.
The fallacy is that the true lies _at_ the middle, not in the middle.
You're thinking in one dimension. Truth. Add another dimension, time, and now we're talking about reality.
Ultimately, if both sides have a true argument, the real issue is which will happen first in time? Will AI change the world before the whole circular investment vehicle implode? Or after, like happened with the dotcom boom?
parineum|4 months ago
The fallacy is that the true lies _at_ the middle, not in the middle.
gitremote|4 months ago
Round-earthers: The earth is round.
"Reality lies in the middle" argument: The earth is oblong, not a perfect sphere, so both sides were right.
philistine|4 months ago
Ultimately, if both sides have a true argument, the real issue is which will happen first in time? Will AI change the world before the whole circular investment vehicle implode? Or after, like happened with the dotcom boom?
suddenlybananas|4 months ago
This is totally fallacious.