• HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Third option: they’ve fallen into a pattern recognition fallacy and think it’s a number when it’s a completely different symbol. This happens a lot more often than most realize and even knowing about it, it can be difficult to go against the human instinct to find patterns that may or may not exist and then fit the data to it.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 year ago

    Someone, somewhere, will misrepresent this to give credence to the “do your own research” crowd.

    Which is not to discredit the message. They misrepresent everything.

  • MudMan@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    See, this meme is annoyed at the ramifications of epistemological relativism.

    I am extremely annoyed by the superfluous commas.

  • eoddc5@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That grammar is shit as hell, too.

    “Just because you are right

    Does not mean

    I am wrong

    Except my grammar

    Which sucks doodie”

  • Phlogiston@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m a little amused that in the comic both viewers are correct relative to their frame of reference. An extremely powerful concept that significantly advanced physics and about which famous people are household names.

    • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m a little amused that in the comic both viewers are correct relative to their frame of reference. An extremely powerful concept that significantly advanced physics and about which famous people are household names.

      You accidentally made the wrong point, because Einstein’s breakthrough of special relativity was that the speed of light is constant regardless of reference frame.

      So if two people with different frames of reference are measuring the speed of light differently, at least one of them is objectively wrong.

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        But if they measure the order of events differently, they may both be correct. That is because light is always perceived as being the same speed regardless of the observer.

        • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          And yet, causality is preserved, and there is a clear specific mathematical relationship between the two frames of reference.

          So you will measure differently, but as soon as you do the math to account for your different frames of reference, you will again have the same measurements. Of course, we know there is an objective mathematical relationship between the two frames of reference, because the speed of light is constant.

  • Acamon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    The irony is the “one of these people is wrong, somebody painted a six or a nine” is overtly false in this situation. Given the message of the original image, the artist spefically draw a symbol that could be interpreted two ways, and therefore (by design) both figures are equally and partially correct.

    I don’t believe we should abandon all pursuit of truth or objectivity, but the commentor is really making the artists case for them.

    • Akagigahara@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Artist’s intent/message is based on a symbol that can be interpreted two ways, yes. But it is a massive oversimplification for the sake of validating opinions that are plainly wrong.

      The Artist’s point can only be conveyed by creating a situation where there is no context, so neither opinion can be validated. This is inapplicable in any way IRL because there is always context that will validate a specific opinion with facts. The comment just highlights that this situation is contrived and couldn’t, or shouldn’t, happen in such a way.

      It warns of taking Data out of context to suit a specific narrative.

  • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s rarely that simple. This post misses the point; and is just an excuse to insist that YOU’RE right and no need to try and understand the other side or hear them out.

    • fidodo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think the post is saying who’s right is simple, but that both of them need to do more research until there’s enough context to perform a proper assessment. In the situation shown there is not enough information to determine what the facts are and it’s bad for either of them to form an opinion on incomplete context. I agree with the counterpoint, if the situation is vague, do more research first.

      • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not as obvious as the commenter made it out to be. My entire life experience differs from someone else, some points are as obvious to me as the sky being blue, but others don’t have the same experience. This applies to so much in life; one minority knows the reality of discrimination and hate crimes and their neighbor is blissfully ignorant of that existence; and consequently end up on opposite sides of a debate and both claiming that their experience is the reality. Telling a victim of racism that they just “need to do more research” is only going to insult them. That goes back to my point that people should try to understand the other person’s mindset, not necessarily the same.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re basically just agreeing with the correction in the meme but assuming the exact opposite result. In your example of a victim of racism and one who isn’t, there is one truth. Racism exists. The person who says it doesn’t because they don’t see it is objectively wrong.

          The original meme is saying the victim of racism is right, but also the person who says it doesn’t exist is also right.

          I don’t think you’d agree with that. Moreover, the explanation is very clear that it isn’t choosing one over the other. You did so for some reason to try and get people to emotionally react. One person is wrong. Unless it’s a work of art and the artist didn’t intend to be vague, the painter clearly painted one or the other. Without context, you don’t know, so you should find out before claiming anyone is right.

          • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The person who says it doesn’t because they don’t see it is objectively wrong.

            One person is wrong.

            That’s not what the meme is saying, neither is objectively right, they just have different perspectives on the same object they see.

      • blackbrook@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        What if the painter meant a 6 but an entire culture, entire nations of people have be interpreting it as a 9. For hundreds of years this has been known as “the place with the big 9.” The author’s interpretation of the meme is stupid. Human-decided things like this do not have objective right and wrong the same way that facts about the physical world do.

      • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The painter made a single sentence to make a simple point. The next person replied with two paragraphs about how they interpreted a much more complicated point, and in doing so missed their own point.

  • Ilflish@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “The building is behind me therefore it’s a six”

    “But the number should be facing away from the building therefore it’s a nine”

    Me, an intellectual: “I want egg”

  • Dr. Coomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    To further this point, there was an incident in early human history where it was debated whether the massive blobs in space where gas giants or galaxy. It went so far, in fact, that a mass of people built a telescope to clearly see the blobs just to prove eachother wrong and find out that both ideas were correct.

    • DanielCF@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m aware of the irony of correcting you but I can’t help it. Nebulae not gas giants. Gas giants were known to be planets at the time, as they have apparent motion relative to the Stars. Nebulae and galaxies don’t have apparent motion relitive to the stars.