4 ms·

So both of them based their story on flimsy/incomplete evidence and they keep reshaping their stories. If only there were an objective reality to know which ca

So both of them based their story on flimsy/incomplete evidence and they keep reshaping their stories. If only there were an objective reality to know which car was in the wrong. /s

function_seven 3y ago
Sorry if I'm misinterpreting the /s here, but: > If only there were an objective reality to know which car was in the wrong /s This, but sincerely! Problem is there isn't an objective reality to know which car was in the wrong. There's only each participants' recollection of the event—both flawed. She thought her inattention was the cause of the wreck, he thought his failing to yield was the cause. Who is right? Both of them? Just her? Just him? 80% him, 20% her? There is no objective way to answer any of this. What happened during that accident only exists today in the minds of the drivers. Sure, you can look at photos of the aftermath and determine that this fender was bent, or that airbag deployed. But you can't get a similar (objective) level of understanding about the actions of the drivers leading up to the wreck. When they met, he learned that she was not paralyzed (and that his understanding of the past was wrong in that aspect), and she learned that he blamed himself rather than blaming her. By comparing notes, they both got a better version of "the past" in their minds, but there's still room for more variances and disagreements on what exactly happened. There may be an objective reality. But there's no way we can completely understand it. We can only know what our limited senses tell us. As time marches on, those senses get recorded in memories, and further distorted. For the tiny slice of events that get recorded in audio, video, contemporaneous notes, etc.; we have even better understanding. But those methods of capturing events still leave a lot out. You can hear the words, but not the thoughts. You can see the actions, but not the motivations. You can read the written diary, but there are no entries there for things considered irrelevant by the author. There are untold numbers of events that occurred millennia ago that we know absolutely nothing about. But they contribute to how the world works today just the same. Long after the cause is lost to time, the effect chain keeps adding links.
pdonis 3y ago
> If only there were an objective reality to know which car was in the wrong. That's not what I was referring to as a change in facts. The change I was referring to is that he thought the woman was permanently disabled, but then found out she wasn't. That's the key fact that enabled both of them to change their stories about what happened. The fact that the woman also believed the accident was her fault was a nice bit of icing on the cake, but it wasn't the key fact.

So both of them based their story on flimsy/incomplete evidence and they keep reshaping their stories. If only there were an objective reality to know which car was in the wrong. /s

function_seven 3y ago

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting the /s here, but: > If only there were an objective reality to know which car was in the wrong /s This, but sincerely! Problem is there isn't an objective reality to know which car was in the wrong. There's only each participants' recollection of the event—both flawed. She thought her inattention was the cause of the wreck, he thought his failing to yield was the cause. Who is right? Both of them? Just her? Just him? 80% him, 20% her? There is no objective way to answer any of this. What happened during that accident only exists today in the minds of the drivers. Sure, you can look at photos of the aftermath and determine that this fender was bent, or that airbag deployed. But you can't get a similar (objective) level of understanding about the actions of the drivers leading up to the wreck. When they met, he learned that she was not paralyzed (and that his understanding of the past was wrong in that aspect), and she learned that he blamed himself rather than blaming her. By comparing notes, they both got a better version of "the past" in their minds, but there's still room for more variances and disagreements on what exactly happened. There may be an objective reality. But there's no way we can completely understand it. We can only know what our limited senses tell us. As time marches on, those senses get recorded in memories, and further distorted. For the tiny slice of events that get recorded in audio, video, contemporaneous notes, etc.; we have even better understanding. But those methods of capturing events still leave a lot out. You can hear the words, but not the thoughts. You can see the actions, but not the motivations. You can read the written diary, but there are no entries there for things considered irrelevant by the author. There are untold numbers of events that occurred millennia ago that we know absolutely nothing about. But they contribute to how the world works today just the same. Long after the cause is lost to time, the effect chain keeps adding links.

pdonis 3y ago

> If only there were an objective reality to know which car was in the wrong. That's not what I was referring to as a change in facts. The change I was referring to is that he thought the woman was permanently disabled, but then found out she wasn't. That's the key fact that enabled both of them to change their stories about what happened. The fact that the woman also believed the accident was her fault was a nice bit of icing on the cake, but it wasn't the key fact.