Comment by postflopclarity
16 days ago
> if people can watch the same video and come to entirely different conclusions, how can you say it "... speak for themselves"?
because a disappointingly large fraction of the public is unable to acknowledge facts of reality. the video is speaking, but some people just ain't listening.
>because a disappointingly large fraction of the public is unable to acknowledge facts of reality. the video is speaking, but some people just ain't listening.
If something really does "speak for themselves", but also "disappointingly large fraction" (1%? 5%? 10%? 20%? 50%?) refuse to accept it, is that a meaningful statement? Is it the epistemic equivalent of "80% of the time, it works every time"?
I don't know what you want me to say.
"some people are wrong and dumb" is not an argument compelling enough to me to reject the evidence of my eyes and ears.
The point is that "other people" use the same exact argument too. The evidence of _their_ eyes and ears. This is not meaningful.
I think "ok, I was wrong" is what you could've said.
1 reply →