Todays fire analogy is to do with evidence and hypothesis.
Say a new perspective or idea arrives in your head, howsoever it may get there. This idea can be supported by experience, it may be questioned by experience, or experience may have no relevance to this perspective (the latter condition is highly improbable although theoretically possible).
Think of the hypothesis as a fire. Supporting evidence is fuel for that fire. This is nice and simple.
What, then, about evidence that seems to contradict the hypothesis? Should it be used to attempt to douse the fire, or would it be more properly used if it were instead considered fuel for an alternate hypothesis/fire? After all, an incorrect hypothesis should not need putting out – it will starve for lack of fuel.
Now, I have seen and you have seen people try to feed their fires with something called ‘selective evidence.’ This may cause you to fear that incorrect fires will be burning because the fuel has been hijacked from the correct fire.
I put it to you that if the fuel is not appropriate to the fire, the fire will not gain much from it, and that there is a law of diminishing returns in these scenarios.
My current hypothesis is that if a fire has been burning for a long time, the chances are that the fire has a steady supply of appropriate fuel.
The only way to keep an incorrect fire burning beyond its natural life would be to use an INORDINATE amount of inappropriate fuel. The strange thing is that true fires seem to keep burning in the background. This may seem confusing. No one said perception and discernment would be easy.
Soundbergs 