I was discussing with my mother about intelligence, geniality and stupidity when I asked my mother about what was the opposite assertion of a stupid assertion. My mother (85 yo) answered to me: "It is obvious: it is an intelligent assertion!". I was so sorry, but I had to confute this assertion as a naive assertion - I could not obviously say: "it is a stupid assertion" to my mother! When we discuss about philosophical matter I have great respect for her! -. I said her that we are never sure that the OPPOSITE OF A STUPID ASSERTION is not another stupid assertion. The opposite of a stupid assertion can be another stupid assertion! And that is not so trivial!
WE ARE LIVING IN THE REALITY!
Indeed we are living in the Reality and our discussion was thought into that.
The Reality, when it is analyzed, has a particularity: it has a so huge number of facets that we cannot take into account of everything discussing of it.
Better: Reality has a multidimensional model and every time we argue on Reality, we are able to take into account of a limited amount of variables.
When colloquially we - my mother and me - were using the term "the opposite" I was deliberately permitting us to use a typical approach like that in disputes are currently set in Italy: "is it either fault to Corporation or to Trade-Unions?" or maybe "Is it either fault to Government or to General Economical situation?".
Typical Italian approach is to set the two things onto two opposite ends of a line just to split Good Guys Vs Bad Guys; so, apparently, Co and Trade-Unions, Government and General Economical situation appear to be on the same line as opponents: we, Italians, are all Manicheans, we love to put ourselves amongst good guys. So we absolutely need Bad Guys somewhere in front of us!
Avoiding and refusing for a while my breed's instincts, I guess that the correct approach to it, is to place the two concepts on independent dimensions instead, having, this way, two independent responsibilities impacting the Reality. This way we avoid a pretended opposition of good and bad guys that belongs to policy and not to a serious approach to the Reality.
Indeed, when we speak about Reality every person has his own approach: which one is the best one? I guess that higher is the number of variables we are able to gather about the problem and more the model is precise (or less erratic/random is its behavior).
QUANTUM THEORY OR ZENO'S PARADOX?
Collecting all those variables is not a simple task. We can find them in a small amount if we simply are focusing on the problem (without disturbing New-Age theories about Quantum physics on "everything is resonating" which is a charming though impossible to use theory).
Yet, when we assume as a base of our theories a limited number of variables, we are normally able to easily cope with them.
We can artificialy and suitably reduce the number of, so we can demonstrate almost everything (Zeno's Paradox of "Achilles and tortoise" is one of the most famous), but our goal here should be a better perception of the Reality and its rules, to have a better forecasts.
But the tricky thing (or think?) is to find them in a more effective or maybe predictable way.
EMPIRISM or PREDICTABLE FINDINGS?
Ask me for it