Knowing nothing else, indeed the probability of a true perception is 1/2, and a false perception is 1/2, and thus the probability of X, Y and Z all having a true perception is 1/8, and all having a false perception is also 1/8.
But we know something else: All three perceive the same thing P.
This new knowledge changes the probability. To simplify, let's suppose they can only perceive 10 different things ever. The probability of all three perceiving the same false perception P is now (1/10)*(1/10)*(1/10)=1/100. Since the only alternative is a true perception, that probability is 1-(1/100)=99/100. — Samuel Lacrampe
The probabilities of outcomes change based on your knowledge of the system. As the knowledge in the first paragraph above is different than the one in the second paragraph, the probabilities are different. — Samuel Lacrampe
To be technical, all perceptions are real; it is a matter of finding if they are true or false. — Samuel Lacrampe
Blind people cannot see. People's perceptions are fallible. Blind people reporting things that must be seen to be noted are right only coincidentally. The cannot possibly have seen anything. Fallible people might often be right.1. An individual/one person's report doesn't count as a strong enough foundation to believe that what this person perceives is real. How is it then that a group of people's report of a perception is taken as adequate grounds for believing a given perception is real? After all the group consists of individuals. It's like saying that a group of blind individuals can see even though each and everyone in the group is blind. — TheMadFool
How is it that while one individual's testimony has zero credibility, a group of people, composed of individuals as it were, enjoy a special status as far as believability is concerned? That's all I'm concerned about. — TheMadFool
Yeah that's indeed what I thought you meant. I'm just being nit-picky.
For general info though, "truth" is "conformance to reality", where as "real" means "exists outside the mind (contrasted with imaginary)". As such, all perceptions, insofar that we experience them, are real. And if the info they provide conforms to reality, then the perceptions are true, and false otherwise. — Samuel Lacrampe
But to say we give zero value to one person's seeing/claim/assertion does not fit everyday reality in the least. I find it hard to believe anyone made a video showing this. We all, for example, go to experts ALL THE TIME, and often only in extreme situations (cancer diagnoses, for example) do we go for a second opinion — Coben
Now if we are talking about scientific contexts only, again, individual observations are included in all research, but to gain acceptance as a theory, for example, rather than a hypothesis, we require more individual observations by individuals, and rigorous control of potential other factors. This is to reduce the potential problems an individual observer might have (misinterpretation, bias, mistakes). — Coben
That single obersvation simply does not have enough value (note!!!!! not binary, we are talking about degree of value). So when you add up things with not enough value in and of themselves,you are adding up some degree of value to a level considered rigorous enough to be consider ENOUGH value. Degrees of value. — Coben
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.