2 ms·

I've brought neither value judgment nor morality. I merely said that it's legit to think about perspectives as having degrees of correctness, just as it's legit

by smhost 10y ago

I've brought neither value judgment nor morality. I merely said that it's legit to think about perspectives as having degrees of correctness, just as it's legit to think about moral philosophies as having degrees of correctness. It's fine if you want say, "I don't believe you," and that would be a valid interpretation on your part. But it is politics in the true sense, and you're participating in it with this conversation. You're attempting to assert that your interpretation of a word or a concept or a situation is correct and that mine is not, even though there are no objective truths to be said about either perspective. As far as I can tell, OP doesn't claim that he is correcting the specific fact-claim about the turnstiles but that he is correcting the anecdotes as a whole. What I believe the OP wants to correct is the framing or the tone of the anecdotes, not any particulars facts inside them.

freyir 10y ago
> What I believe the OP wants to correct is the framing or the tone of the anecdotes Fair enough. One person frames it as "Meyer was motivated by empathy," and the other frames it as "She was motivated by self-interest." Neither person can prove their claim conclusively, but I assume there's some evidence that led Core1024 to contradict the blogger. The best we can hope for is to hear evidence from both sides, and come to our own conclusion. It might be common for people to say "You're wrong" without providing evidence or rationale. But unless "You're wrong" is accompanied by some justification, it's devoid of value. All we now know is that somebody on the Internet thinks Meyer is self-serving, and we knew that already. > it's legit to think about perspectives as having degrees of correctness Can you provide an example where one perspective on a person is correct (or more correct), another perspective on that person is incorrect (or less correct), and the relative correctness is not based on objective truth or an appeal to moral authority?
- smhost 10y ago
  > The best we can hope for is to hear evidence from both sides, and come to our own conclusion. I don't think the principle of evidence-based decision-making applies to most social situations. For one, there usually is no evidence. With the Mayer situation, while everyone might agree that the turnstiles are no longer there, we have no video footage or recorded conversations to examine. So in a real sense, narratives and hearsay are all we have. For another, we care about other people's opinions. Like with online reviews, people find value even in reviews that don't give any explanations, or for food product reviews that amount to nothing more than, "Five stars, because it tastes good." If someone makes an accusatory statement about another person, I agree that there's definitely a burden of proof. But Core1024's comment doesn't seem to me to be accusatory or an attempt to frame Mayer as a selfish person. I think the comment reframes Mayer's actions as being motivated by efficiency as opposed to empathy, which I think is a much more neutral view. > Can you provide an example where one perspective on a person is correct (or more correct), another perspective on that person is incorrect (or less correct), and the relative correctness is not based on objective truth or an appeal to moral authority? Any interpretation you have of a social situation. Any opinion you have of your work environment or social circle. Your beliefs about what defines a certain culture. We understand intellectually that these are all opinions and that opinions are subjective, but there's no sense in which we would ever behave as if our beliefs are not true. Otherwise why would we believe them in the first place? I think it's disingenuous to look for objectivity in social interpretations. And anyway this isn't a criminal trial, or something like that. It's pure gossip.

by smhost 10y ago

freyir 10y ago

> What I believe the OP wants to correct is the framing or the tone of the anecdotes Fair enough. One person frames it as "Meyer was motivated by empathy," and the other frames it as "She was motivated by self-interest." Neither person can prove their claim conclusively, but I assume there's some evidence that led Core1024 to contradict the blogger. The best we can hope for is to hear evidence from both sides, and come to our own conclusion. It might be common for people to say "You're wrong" without providing evidence or rationale. But unless "You're wrong" is accompanied by some justification, it's devoid of value. All we now know is that somebody on the Internet thinks Meyer is self-serving, and we knew that already. > it's legit to think about perspectives as having degrees of correctness Can you provide an example where one perspective on a person is correct (or more correct), another perspective on that person is incorrect (or less correct), and the relative correctness is not based on objective truth or an appeal to moral authority?

smhost 10y ago
> The best we can hope for is to hear evidence from both sides, and come to our own conclusion. I don't think the principle of evidence-based decision-making applies to most social situations. For one, there usually is no evidence. With the Mayer situation, while everyone might agree that the turnstiles are no longer there, we have no video footage or recorded conversations to examine. So in a real sense, narratives and hearsay are all we have. For another, we care about other people's opinions. Like with online reviews, people find value even in reviews that don't give any explanations, or for food product reviews that amount to nothing more than, "Five stars, because it tastes good." If someone makes an accusatory statement about another person, I agree that there's definitely a burden of proof. But Core1024's comment doesn't seem to me to be accusatory or an attempt to frame Mayer as a selfish person. I think the comment reframes Mayer's actions as being motivated by efficiency as opposed to empathy, which I think is a much more neutral view. > Can you provide an example where one perspective on a person is correct (or more correct), another perspective on that person is incorrect (or less correct), and the relative correctness is not based on objective truth or an appeal to moral authority? Any interpretation you have of a social situation. Any opinion you have of your work environment or social circle. Your beliefs about what defines a certain culture. We understand intellectually that these are all opinions and that opinions are subjective, but there's no sense in which we would ever behave as if our beliefs are not true. Otherwise why would we believe them in the first place? I think it's disingenuous to look for objectivity in social interpretations. And anyway this isn't a criminal trial, or something like that. It's pure gossip.