5 ms·

What makes "I hear <X> but I want to try to hear <Y> like other people, interesting." any more healthy than "I hear <X> and the rest of you are wrong!"? It's c

What makes "I hear <X> but I want to try to hear <Y> like other people, interesting." any more healthy than "I hear <X> and the rest of you are wrong!"? It's certainly reasonable and "healthy" to confidently exclaim the latter. I'm quite confident in the fact that I heard "laurel" in the same way I'm confident that 2 + 2 = 4, and I truly believe any other answer to be wrong. Now, the hearing test is presented in such a way that it would be "healthy" to assume there's more to it - that what you heard may be heard differently from others; this is an interesting yet unintuitive phenomenon. But, of course it's also healthy to assume the reverse. Maybe it's presented in a pseudo-phenomenological manner. Maybe it wants you to assume that some people hear the other word - a trick question. Maybe some people then would confidently and healthily exclaim that what they heard is correct, and no other answer is suitable. Now, between "yanny" and "laurel", if you said you heard "lemon"...well maybe that's unhealthy - get your hearing checked.

geofft 8y ago
2 + 2 = 4 is a pretty low-information statement: "4" has very little meaning other than "the symbol we assign to the value 2 + 2". 2 + 2 = 1 + 3 is a bit more interesting. 9 < π² < 10 is more interesting still, even though it is just as true as 2 + 2 = 4. "I heard 'Laurel'" is also a very different statement from "The recording says 'Laurel.'" If you heard "Laurel," you heard "Laurel," nobody can tell you otherwise. But you might not have heard what was actually on the recording. Someone might have overdubbed a distorted version of "Yanny." I don't know about healthy, but if my goal is the shared pursuit of knowledge and truth, someone who's able to meaningfully distinguish the ways in which they're confident of these various statements will be much more helpful to me than someone who does not. (Unless that person is a superhuman oracle who simply knows the truth of all things and does not need to reason about them, in which case, Lord, I am not worthy...)
- quietbritishjim 8y ago
  2+2=4 is not just trivially true: Typically the symbol "4" is defined to be 3+1. (Actually it's defined as the successor of 3, but "successor" is essentially the same as "+1"). So 2+2=4 is exactly equivalent to 2+2=3+1. This is slightly different to your identity of 2+2=1+3, because 3+1=1+3 is also non trivial. More information: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

geofft 8y ago

2 + 2 = 4 is a pretty low-information statement: "4" has very little meaning other than "the symbol we assign to the value 2 + 2". 2 + 2 = 1 + 3 is a bit more interesting. 9 < π² < 10 is more interesting still, even though it is just as true as 2 + 2 = 4. "I heard 'Laurel'" is also a very different statement from "The recording says 'Laurel.'" If you heard "Laurel," you heard "Laurel," nobody can tell you otherwise. But you might not have heard what was actually on the recording. Someone might have overdubbed a distorted version of "Yanny." I don't know about healthy, but if my goal is the shared pursuit of knowledge and truth, someone who's able to meaningfully distinguish the ways in which they're confident of these various statements will be much more helpful to me than someone who does not. (Unless that person is a superhuman oracle who simply knows the truth of all things and does not need to reason about them, in which case, Lord, I am not worthy...)

quietbritishjim 8y ago
2+2=4 is not just trivially true: Typically the symbol "4" is defined to be 3+1. (Actually it's defined as the successor of 3, but "successor" is essentially the same as "+1"). So 2+2=4 is exactly equivalent to 2+2=3+1. This is slightly different to your identity of 2+2=1+3, because 3+1=1+3 is also non trivial. More information: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms