Proofs That P

Parodies in no particular order

Inspired by Huemer.

Huemer: some people have denied that P. This has a crucial problem: it’s obviously false (chuckles). Therefore, P.

Parfit: we might adopt view, O, according to which ~P. This, in my view, would be a very grave mistake. Therefore, I suggest, we should adopt view P, according to which: P.

Lance Bush: I don’t know what you mean by ~P.

Bentham’s Bulldog (ME): P is obviously true. Our denial of P comes from the fact that we find it hard to empathize with small, simple conclusions like P, rather than larger, macro-scale conclusions (like ~P, which is larger on account of the extra tilde). But this is clearly irrational.

Socrates: Why, surely you would agree that P is true with respect to the potter? And what of the ship-builder? Is it not true for him also? So then isn’t P true generally?

Joe Schmid: To my mind, there are many distinct plausible accounts in the literature according to which P. I confess that I—while highly uncertain, to be sure—find myself extremely attracted to these accounts according to which P.

Peter Van Inwagen: ~P isn’t even coherent. What could it possibly mean to deny P?

Emile Torres: colonialist, eugenicist, tech bros think ~P, so therefore P.

Eliezer Yudkowsky: Here is a parable in which P. Therefore, P is totally obvious, and if you can’t see why P, then you’re just nowhere near at the level needed to be doing alignment work.

Ayn Rand:

John Galt: P and here is a lengthy soliloquy about it.

Losers who hate freedom, prosperity, and the good: ~P.

John Searle: I was talking to Foucault and he said “~P,” so I said “what the hell do you mean by that?” And he said “well, obviously I know P is true, but in France, you’re not allowed to say that.” So I think P is obviously so, and I don’t know how anyone got the silly idea that it was otherwise.

Amia Srinivasan: imagine a racisty racist who hates black people and thinks ~P. Clearly, such a person would be mistaken about ~P. Therefore, P.

Judith Butler: For Foucault, P. This is not a simple assertion that P, but rather a radical unsettling of the grounds on which “~P” rests, neither cohered nor constituted independently of the crucial role of society.

Jay Dyer: ~P is a fallacy.

Rationality Rules: ~P commits the falsely denying P fallacy.

Graham Priest: there have been some very strong arguments in the literature for ~P. But there have also been strong arguments for P. Thus, I accept both.

Timothy Williamson: I have a model on which P, so P.

Jesus: You have heard it said “~P.” But truly I tell you “P.”

Perry Hendricks: before I tell you why P is obviously true, did you hear about the recent kidnapping in a pre-school? Thankfully, the kid later woke up.

Slavoj Zizek: I was recently reading an obscure bit of Russian pornographic literature (sniffs) no, no, this is no joke, and I think it made it clear that P.

Redeemed Zoomer: lots of people think holding ~P is a protestant thing, but actually, all the historic protestant traditions have affirmed P. So no guys, it’s actually a low Church evangelical thing. I recommend reading Zwingli, Luther, and the reformers for more on this.

Kate Mann: those who reject P are trying to break into your house and kill you with a hammer.

David Chalmers: here is an exhaustive typology of views towards P: call A affirming P, B rejecting P, and C being unsure. I think A is right, so P.

Graham Oppy: so if you compare the theories ~P and P, I think P is a good bit better.

David Stove: Here is a belief possessed by nearly everyone: P. One who denied P would be uncommonly ignorant. Thus, deniers of P must take great pains to make it sound like they are affirming P, without, of course, agreeing with it. Such desperate contortions would be amusing if they hadn’t duped the world into thinking that many of those who most vociferously deny P actually affirm it.

Jordan Peterson: well it’s like, you have the bloody postmodernists assert that ~P. And it’s like, sorry bucko, how the hell are you going to build a society on the negation of P? When you get down to its essence it’s like society depends—fundamentally—on the axiom that P, and that’s not a trivial thing, you can’t just brush it off.

Matt Dillahunty: you haven’t demonstrated, YOU HAVEN’T DEMONSTRATED, YOU HAVEN’T—LISTED, moron, I will hang up the call—you haven’t DEMONSTRATED not P. Do you know what a demonstration is?

Ethan Muse: ~P is out of accordance with the laws of logic, physics, and the moral law—other than that, it is a great theory.

Dean Withers: Wait, buddy, you think ~P??? That’s absolutely hilarious to me!

Richard Swinburne: well you see, I think P is very probable, and as I show in the Appendix to my book, P is true with 97% probability, that is to say, P is almost surely correct and denying it is simply foolishness.

The Apostle Paul: Should we think ~P? By no means!

Tucker Carlson: I think a lot of normal Americans—hardworking Americans—are wondering, like, why should we accept ~P? Certainly it doesn’t seem good for America. Why should we think it’s right? I think it’s concerning that you’re not even allowed to ask that question.

Dan Dennett: Many people say ~P is self-evident. Well, I think P, and there’s not the slightest reason to think ~P. Maybe we can’t say ~P is literally true, but we can say R, and surely that’s good enough? What more could you want if you have R already in affirming ~P? Perhaps it’s just a childlike sentimentality that leaves people clinging to ~P even after having R.

Generic EA: Yeah I’m like broadly highly sympathetic to P.

Vasco Grillo: I calculate the impact of ~P on soil nematodes is 124,000,000 times greater than the direct impact of P.

Richard Chappell: P has often been thought to assume utilitarianism. But this is demonstrably mistaken. P depends only on a much more modest principle: Beneficentrism.

Steven Kershnar: well thank you for that very interesting suggestion that ~P. I think this is an excellent suggestion but ultimately I just don’t think it’s plausible. ~P will either be a property of the right or a property of the good. Now, is it a property of the good? I think no for four reasons. First, there’s a circularity worry…

Amos Wollen: every argument that ~P (a parody).

David Hume: ~P would be a far greater miracle than P.

Popper: P is irrefutable in the sense that it has not been refuted. Therefore, it is on exactly the same grounds as the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow (having not yet been refuted).

Noam Chomsky: P is a matter of decency, obvious truism, elementary morality, and so on and so forth, endorsed even by George Bush’s favorite philosopher.

Carnap: ~P doesn’t make a prediction about what I’d experience? What does it even mean?

Scott Alexander:

Adraste: P.

Beroe: ~P.

…

12,000 lines later

Beroe’s evil twin: something neither P nor not P.

12,000 lines later

…

Beroe: AH, I don’t know what to say to this objection.

Jason Stanley: in my book, How Fascism Works, I show that P.

Gavin Ortlund: I really have a conviction on my heart to talk about P. I’m arguing for P for two reasons: triage and truth. I find ~P both intellectually empty and existentially unfulfilling.

Jimmy Akin: well, let’s look at P from the twin perspectives of faith and reason. From the perspective of faith, the magisterium hasn’t given an official teaching on P. So from the standpoint of the deposit of faith, you’re free to believe P or ~P. Now, I find from the reason perspective the arguments for P to be much stronger.

Hegel: In the immediacy of our ordinary consciousness, P first appears merely as a proposition. Yet this P, taken in its abstract determinacy, is confronted by its negation, ~P, which equally lays claim to truth. But the truth is not found in the abstract assertion of either P or ~P. Rather, in the movement in which ~P sublates itself, we come to see that ~P is only for itself through P, and P only fully is in and through the negation of ~P. In this unity of opposites, P is revealed as the concrete, living truth. Therefore—and only in this higher sense—P.¹

Philip Goff: I believe that EVEN ATOMS have an unimaginably simple form of P.

David Bentley Hart: It grows so tedious and tiresome to have to argue for P over and over again. If one had any sense they’d see that God couldn’t—as a matter of straightforward logic—will a world in which ~P. Sigh, do I really need to explain this again?

Peter Hitchens: Well, you know I’m frankly bored by having to say it again. I’ve been saying P for years, you know, and as Britain goes down the tubes one would think that people would finally come around to P, but no. You are obsessed with drugs.

Dustin Crummett: P (chuckles).

Nick Fuentes: if you deny P, you might just be gay, Jewish, or a woman.

Matt Walsh: lots of people say “I’m a P first guy, but not a P only guy.” No, I’m a P only guy. I think P and I’m not afraid or ashamed to admit it.

Pat Flynn: If ~P is true, it would be without an ultimate explanation. And that just strikes me as so implausible.

Drew Pavlou: My friends, I believe P, I will die for P, and I believe western civilization needs P.

Destiny: it’s so cringe dude how many people deny P. It’s so cringe, holy shit. But it’s just memes, it’s just memes.

The Droll Scroll

and

Glenn

as of recently:

1. This one was AI generated :(. Couldn’t quite get the impression right.