5 ms·

The factory owner and the factory worker can look at the same set of data and arrive at completely different world views. The Empire Did Nothing Wrong™ Was Lu

The factory owner and the factory worker can look at the same set of data and arrive at completely different world views. The Empire Did Nothing Wrong™ Was Lucifer actually incorrect in his position in the Garden of Eden? I'm pointing out how completely different and valid perspectives can be derived from the same set of data, the same circumstance. The problem arises when one claims their perspective was "inflicted" upon them by some uncompromising, external agent, which implies there is no choice in the matter, which is absurd because there most certainly is. I don't think you're wrong, by the way, I just see things a little differently.

dredmorbius 4y ago
The factory owner and the factory worker can look at the same set of data and arrive at completely different world views. My comment allows for that. Many-sidedness, a/k/a Anekantavada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada). But many sidedness is not the any sideness which revealed or blind-faith belief permits. Experiential understanding is bound to and by that experience. Further, the cases you're referring to largely discuss social relational worldviews which are informed by status, standing, and affiliation within a society or culture. There are of course non-social instances of multiple interpretations, such as wave-particle duality, in which how one looks at a phenomenon influences the model arrived. at. Factory owner and worker at least have beleif and understanding grounded in experience, and might be convinced of or sympathetic to the validity of views generated by the alternate experience. Your "which implies there is no choice" is reading meaning to my comment I did not intend and disagree with strongly. The fact that people see things differently, that is, arrive at different conclusions based on different empirical evidence or experience is in fact my point.
- jason-phillips 4y ago
  Understood. I reread everything three+ times and understand now. I am in the middle of a huge deployment and was rushed this morning. > others' beliefs are "wrong" because they are simply adopted But are they... wrong? I certainly don't operate as you described, but I see plenty who do. I also choose not to judge their "wrongs".
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    It might be more ... useful to think of models, understanding, and/or knowledge (largely interchangeable terms) as having use value rather than truth value. That is, good models are useful, in some way. Usefulness, like value, is itself relative and depends on intent, goals, and starting positions. That said, there are models with greater or usefulness over a wide range of circumstances. Holding to a model which is demonstrably inferior in this regard might well be considered "wrong", in this sense.
    - jason-phillips 4y ago
      Absolutely. This is exactly what I do, actually. I argue from the perspective of many models at once, assign weights and priorities and then arrive at some conclusion with an estimated probability of effectiveness or usefulness depending on use case. Truth simply is and is also unknowable at the same time. Personally, I would only make one modification here for my own purposes: > Holding to a model which is demonstrably inferior in this regard might well be considered "wrong" to me. I know what is right and wrong for me and to me, but stop short of extending that judgement outside my person. That's just me though.

dredmorbius 4y ago

The factory owner and the factory worker can look at the same set of data and arrive at completely different world views. My comment allows for that. Many-sidedness, a/k/a Anekantavada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada). But many sidedness is not the any sideness which revealed or blind-faith belief permits. Experiential understanding is bound to and by that experience. Further, the cases you're referring to largely discuss social relational worldviews which are informed by status, standing, and affiliation within a society or culture. There are of course non-social instances of multiple interpretations, such as wave-particle duality, in which how one looks at a phenomenon influences the model arrived. at. Factory owner and worker at least have beleif and understanding grounded in experience, and might be convinced of or sympathetic to the validity of views generated by the alternate experience. Your "which implies there is no choice" is reading meaning to my comment I did not intend and disagree with strongly. The fact that people see things differently, that is, arrive at different conclusions based on different empirical evidence or experience is in fact my point.

jason-phillips 4y ago
Understood. I reread everything three+ times and understand now. I am in the middle of a huge deployment and was rushed this morning. > others' beliefs are "wrong" because they are simply adopted But are they... wrong? I certainly don't operate as you described, but I see plenty who do. I also choose not to judge their "wrongs".
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  It might be more ... useful to think of models, understanding, and/or knowledge (largely interchangeable terms) as having use value rather than truth value. That is, good models are useful, in some way. Usefulness, like value, is itself relative and depends on intent, goals, and starting positions. That said, there are models with greater or usefulness over a wide range of circumstances. Holding to a model which is demonstrably inferior in this regard might well be considered "wrong", in this sense.
  - jason-phillips 4y ago
    Absolutely. This is exactly what I do, actually. I argue from the perspective of many models at once, assign weights and priorities and then arrive at some conclusion with an estimated probability of effectiveness or usefulness depending on use case. Truth simply is and is also unknowable at the same time. Personally, I would only make one modification here for my own purposes: > Holding to a model which is demonstrably inferior in this regard might well be considered "wrong" to me. I know what is right and wrong for me and to me, but stop short of extending that judgement outside my person. That's just me though.