3 ms·

People can be wrong about factual things, which can be verified. We need to be careful, though, to not adopt black and white thinking even around "facts." Ofte

People can be wrong about factual things, which can be verified. We need to be careful, though, to not adopt black and white thinking even around "facts." Often, multiple contradictory factual things can be true at the same time and all pass verification. Illusions are a lighthearted example of this that helped me appreciate this point. For example, the Yanni/Laurel audio illusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel) where people on both sides argue, in good faith, that the sound is one or the other. And even if you analyze the underlying audio in depth, neither side is factually wrong because that is how they experience it and isn't merely based around an opinion :-)

zelphirkalt 4y ago
> Illusions are a lighthearted example of this that helped me appreciate this point. For example, the Yanni/Laurel audio illusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel) where people on both sides argue, in good faith, that the sound is one or the other. And even if you analyze the underlying audio in depth, neither side is factually wrong because that is how they experience it and isn't merely based around an opinion :-) This example does not add much. If it is how people experience, then the only fact they can derive is, that they personally experienced it that way. There is no point in fighting about "what it really is", when all you have is a personal exerience. Anyone saying it objectively is this one or that one, only based on personal experience, is not accounting for the fact, that others can experience differently, which is silly. In this light I assume, that you put quotes around "facts" as a means of saying, that they are not really facts, because if they were, then there would truly only be black and white.
jjk166 4y ago
So when I say it's Yanni, and you say it's Laurel, which of us is supposed to admit we're wrong? Neither of us are wrong, it's just a difference of opinions.
- v64 4y ago
  In this case, the recording was of a person saying the word laurel as part of a collection of reference pronunciations. If you don't hear the word laurel, you're the one in the wrong, having been deceived by an audio illusion.

zelphirkalt 4y ago

> Illusions are a lighthearted example of this that helped me appreciate this point. For example, the Yanni/Laurel audio illusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel) where people on both sides argue, in good faith, that the sound is one or the other. And even if you analyze the underlying audio in depth, neither side is factually wrong because that is how they experience it and isn't merely based around an opinion :-) This example does not add much. If it is how people experience, then the only fact they can derive is, that they personally experienced it that way. There is no point in fighting about "what it really is", when all you have is a personal exerience. Anyone saying it objectively is this one or that one, only based on personal experience, is not accounting for the fact, that others can experience differently, which is silly. In this light I assume, that you put quotes around "facts" as a means of saying, that they are not really facts, because if they were, then there would truly only be black and white.

jjk166 4y ago

So when I say it's Yanni, and you say it's Laurel, which of us is supposed to admit we're wrong? Neither of us are wrong, it's just a difference of opinions.

v64 4y ago
In this case, the recording was of a person saying the word laurel as part of a collection of reference pronunciations. If you don't hear the word laurel, you're the one in the wrong, having been deceived by an audio illusion.