You presented a lot of reasons why this or that person might believe this or that thing, but what about people who believe things because they match what they’ve observed?
Aren’t there maybe some people whose basis for knowledge is that they’ve seen things?
Like, a given accusation of the form “The antifas burnt a guy’s car with a molotov!” can be analyzed in terms of motivations, and it can be seen as a reflection of your enemy’s active projection processes. But … the accusation can also be evaluated as true or false, based on evidence.
Let’s not forget that “claims of fact are either true or false” angle alongside all the others we consider the accusations from.
Ask any criminal lawyer, police officer or psychologist if what multiple people say they saw of the same event ever matches to the detail.
Anybody who ever dealth with witnesses knows that what people “see” is to a great extent what they expect to see.
(In your example - “The antifas burnt a guy’s car with a molotov!” - what exactly led that observer to believe the perpetrator was antifa? That small and simple sentence of yours is not objective and already includes drawing conclusions based on the observer’s own assumptions)
People are already interpreting things when they see something and usually store into memory their interpretation of things, unless we’re talking about one of the rare individuals with perfect photographic memory.
There is a big long running discussion about Subjectivity and Objectivity in Phylosophy and so far most people think Human Beings are incapable of being completely Objective.
You presented a lot of reasons why this or that person might believe this or that thing, but what about people who believe things because they match what they’ve observed?
Aren’t there maybe some people whose basis for knowledge is that they’ve seen things?
Like, a given accusation of the form “The antifas burnt a guy’s car with a molotov!” can be analyzed in terms of motivations, and it can be seen as a reflection of your enemy’s active projection processes. But … the accusation can also be evaluated as true or false, based on evidence.
Let’s not forget that “claims of fact are either true or false” angle alongside all the others we consider the accusations from.
Ask any criminal lawyer, police officer or psychologist if what multiple people say they saw of the same event ever matches to the detail.
Anybody who ever dealth with witnesses knows that what people “see” is to a great extent what they expect to see.
(In your example - “The antifas burnt a guy’s car with a molotov!” - what exactly led that observer to believe the perpetrator was antifa? That small and simple sentence of yours is not objective and already includes drawing conclusions based on the observer’s own assumptions)
People are already interpreting things when they see something and usually store into memory their interpretation of things, unless we’re talking about one of the rare individuals with perfect photographic memory.
There is a big long running discussion about Subjectivity and Objectivity in Phylosophy and so far most people think Human Beings are incapable of being completely Objective.