3 ms·

I don't think it's just a matter of people being illogical, (although it's certainly the case that all people will be illogical at least some of the time.) How

I don't think it's just a matter of people being illogical, (although it's certainly the case that all people will be illogical at least some of the time.) How people interpret what they observe is fundamentally subjective. > "Facebook didn't say they would be moderating discussion in that way." Sure, I'm responding more to the notion of "Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to believe facts" My point is that video doesn't always make it clear what the facts are. It's not merely a matter of 'some people don't believe facts' because in many cases different people can view the same video and, with a large degree of confidence and in good faith, have different opinions on what the facts are.

dfxm12 6y ago
If a person uses a video as evidence to conclude something that isn't evident in the video, it is not an issue about subjectivity. It's an issue with the person; they're being illogical, or acting in bad faith.
- catalogia 6y ago
  > something that isn't evident in the video What is or isn't evident in a video is very often subjective. It's a mistake to believe that somebody who is certain of something which contradicts something you are certain of must be illogical or acting in bad faith. Two people can view the same video with different perspectives[0], perceive two sets of mutually exclusive facts, and from those contradictory perceived facts logically deduce contradictory conclusions. [0] It's arguably impossible for two people to have the same perspective, since they have lived different lives and had different experiences.
  - dfxm12 6y ago
    What is or isn't evident in a video is very often subjective. If this is the case, it's a mistake to try to put forward a fact as objective based on something that is "very often subjective". To do so is illogical or acting in bad faith.
    - catalogia 6y ago
      > If this is the case, it's a mistake to try to put forward a fact as objective based on something that is "very often subjective". Pretty much. If such a thing as truly objective facts exists, I (and any other human) can only perceive and understand it through through the imperfect tools available to us. The mechanisms through which we perceive and understand reality are influenced by our lived experiences; nobody is immune to this. Of this, I am certain. Incidentally, one of the various things I am certain of is that some of the things I am certain of are actually wrong. > To do so is illogical or acting in bad faith. I disagree, I don't think that logically follows from the former premise. It may be the case that somebody arguing logically and in good faith simply failed to perceive facts which, had they perceived them, would alter their logical conclusions. As a concrete example: many people who view the video of WTC7 collapsing seemingly fail to notice that in the upper left corner of the building, sunlight is visible through the windows after the rooftop penthouse collapses, immediately preceding the total collapse of the building. That sunlight is visible through those windows is a fact, by my perception. When I point this out to people who believe WTC7 was demolished, the response is often that they never noticed it before I pointed it out. It doesn't therefore follow that they were previously arguing in bad faith or illogically; what it shows is that different people viewing the same video can acquire different sets of facts. Different sets of facts may lead to different good faith and logical conclusions. A fact that you are unaware of cannot be apart of your logical analysis of matters pertaining to that fact; the best you can do is maintain a general awareness that there may be relevant facts you aren't aware of.

dfxm12 6y ago

If a person uses a video as evidence to conclude something that isn't evident in the video, it is not an issue about subjectivity. It's an issue with the person; they're being illogical, or acting in bad faith.

catalogia 6y ago
> something that isn't evident in the video What is or isn't evident in a video is very often subjective. It's a mistake to believe that somebody who is certain of something which contradicts something you are certain of must be illogical or acting in bad faith. Two people can view the same video with different perspectives[0], perceive two sets of mutually exclusive facts, and from those contradictory perceived facts logically deduce contradictory conclusions. [0] It's arguably impossible for two people to have the same perspective, since they have lived different lives and had different experiences.
- dfxm12 6y ago
  What is or isn't evident in a video is very often subjective. If this is the case, it's a mistake to try to put forward a fact as objective based on something that is "very often subjective". To do so is illogical or acting in bad faith.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    > If this is the case, it's a mistake to try to put forward a fact as objective based on something that is "very often subjective". Pretty much. If such a thing as truly objective facts exists, I (and any other human) can only perceive and understand it through through the imperfect tools available to us. The mechanisms through which we perceive and understand reality are influenced by our lived experiences; nobody is immune to this. Of this, I am certain. Incidentally, one of the various things I am certain of is that some of the things I am certain of are actually wrong. > To do so is illogical or acting in bad faith. I disagree, I don't think that logically follows from the former premise. It may be the case that somebody arguing logically and in good faith simply failed to perceive facts which, had they perceived them, would alter their logical conclusions. As a concrete example: many people who view the video of WTC7 collapsing seemingly fail to notice that in the upper left corner of the building, sunlight is visible through the windows after the rooftop penthouse collapses, immediately preceding the total collapse of the building. That sunlight is visible through those windows is a fact, by my perception. When I point this out to people who believe WTC7 was demolished, the response is often that they never noticed it before I pointed it out. It doesn't therefore follow that they were previously arguing in bad faith or illogically; what it shows is that different people viewing the same video can acquire different sets of facts. Different sets of facts may lead to different good faith and logical conclusions. A fact that you are unaware of cannot be apart of your logical analysis of matters pertaining to that fact; the best you can do is maintain a general awareness that there may be relevant facts you aren't aware of.