The fallacious move from different perspectives to relativism about truth

This is a short lecture video about a common argument that one often hears for the claim the truth of some claims are relative. The argument stems from the fact that different people have different perspectives and that those different perspectives are, in some sense, equal. All that is true, but it does not show the matters about which people have different perspectives are not factual matters regarding which some beliefs are simply truth and others simply false.

[@djinn4895]

This is one hell of a hard to swallow pill. And it has been so enlightening

[@avstern1958]

Architects use drawings as analytic tools to understand the space, composition, structure of buildings and built human environments. No one drawing by itself can show the whole "truth" of a building. In fact architects purposefully choose certain drawings to limit certain information and prioritize and clarify other information - these are analytical drawings. The word analysis includes the root "lysis" which means (if i'm not mistaken) to cut. A plan drawing (sometimes called a plan section) cuts the top off a building, revealing the composition of vertically oriented structures (walls, posts/columns), and revealing the spaces for human habitation that result. Plans cannot reveal the structure of a roof or floors, that information is purposely left out of a plan drawing by the choice of the view, to prioritize and clarify the vertical structure and resulting space. To show the roof and floor structures, an architect draws a vertical section drawing that "cuts" vertically through the building. The section drawing reveals the structure of the roof, floor and other other horizontal elements (beams and girders, etc) that help explain the heights of spaces, how strong the floors and roof are - how much load they can hold, where there is vertical circulation (stairwells, elevators). Vertical sections cannot fully elucidate the space available in rooms, etc. because that information is left out of a section drawing to focus on the information listed above. No individual drawing can architecturally explain a building in its entirety. An architect develops a set of drawings to do that. No single view is sufficient to reveal the facts of how the building is to be built. It is interesting that the metaphor of "perspective" in the lecture is used to indicate that only certain objective fact are typically revealed by a person's perspective (of the goat for instance). To extend that assertion, perspectives can offer as much misinformation as information, and so even the objective facts that may be revealed in a perspective may be hard to differentiate from other objective falsities seemingly revealed in the same perspective. The signal to noise ratio is unknowable from the person holding the perspective. Perspective drawings are rarely used by architects as an analytical tool, they paint a picture but do not provide access to much in terms of objective truth.

[@ddrj807]

Beautifully said. To add onto this, I'd say that what I've noticed in order to get a fuller experience is to cycle through multiple different perspectives of said metaphorical object. For example, some people prioritize their health through fitness to be aesthetically pleasing, others to have a sense of stress relief, others as a purely social environment, others as a way to make a living and a whole multitude of other perspectives. To find out which perspective is the best for you, you'd likely be viewing and experiencing as many perspectives as you can and then picking and choosing what you value the most (ex: efficiency, emotional gratification, financial gain etc) in order to make that choice of perspective. Or even choices of multiple perspectives. Food for thought.

[@hakimal-hakim8890]

Although there is an infinity of perspectives to see the goat, but there is only one goat.

[@johnmanno2052]

Dr Kaplan, if one is a moral realist, and says that there is, or may be, objective truth (and there very well may be), what is the best way in order to approach it, and how do you know that you are in fact approaching it?

[@RonLWilson]

It seems the key thing here is that beliefs do not necessarily arrive from just one observation from one perspective. While this can be the case it need not be the case, and in fact probably should not be the case in that prudence might dictate that one refrains from forming a belief until one has examined a subject from observations and many different perspectives. So yes, if one can prematurely jump to a conclusion just from one single observation, and that may be required in certain situations like someone runs out in front of ones car one needs to hit the brakes ASAP. But even then one needs to act intelligent so as not to skid the car are do further damage. But while actions may be based on the beliefs of the moment, more permanent beliefs should it seems be based on more measured and careful observations. while momentary beliefs may arise form looking at something for just that immediate perspective, long term beliefs need not be so limited and can consider things from many perspectives. But if one is such that once they formulate a belief they then can never change that then that immediately belif can the take root and hinder one from ever refining or revising that belief. But to allow that one may then open Pandora's box and a hole slew of beliefs may then come under question. So perhaps that is why some cling to those initial beliefs. But if one believes that it is best to go with one's first gut impression else one may end up questioning everything and thus believe nothing implies that their gut feelings are more reliably than reasoned thought. But all that does is make those who think that all the more vulnerable to con artist who know how to engineer things to bring about those gut reactions such as producing false or misleading information or playing on their emotions are taking advantage of any ignorance ore biases they might have on a subject. So yes, thinking about things can lead to doubts. But doubts can lead to even more thinking which can perhaps eventually mitigate many if not all those doubts and lead to greater certainty, in contrast to a manufactured certainty based on arbitrary devices such as reliance on one's gut feelings. that is not to say one should not consider those gut feelings, they being yet another perspective, rather one should not solely rely ion them and that one should strive to reconcile those guts feeling with reason so the two can work together to better understand and assess the truth of a matter. For one can err in their reason and those gut feelings (are the like such as the heart) can be a check against such errors. But likewise those gut feelings can be wrong or misleading as well. But the two are not mutually exclusive and one can consider both. And in doing so one is looking at the problem from (at least) two different perspectives from the get go. So what makes one perspective is not so much better than another but additive in that it can show things that the other perceive cannot as readily see. But to think about things not only is more work but can create doubts, albeit those doubts can be perhaps allayed by further thought. If not, maybe one should hold off from formulating a hard core belief and stay on the fence for a while longer until those doubts can be allayed by further observations or insights. But that does not mean one should never get off that fence, for that too is a belief and as such to believe that one never can get off any fence is just getting off another fence in regard to beliefs in general. Thus it seems beliefs are important, not so much in what one believes or not (that seems secondary) but rather is that belief true. For having a false belief can be worse than being on the fence. But having a belief that is true is better than both being ion the fence or believing something that is false. So not all beliefs are created equal or doubts as well. For It seems (as you say) some beliefs are better than others and similarly some doubts are better than others as well. For if one doesn't know one way or the other, doubt seems to be the proper response to that condition of not knowing. But to doubt everything is it seems not only an extreme but one that seems to bretay that one does not doubt that one should at all time doubt. Plus one actions are based on beliefs even if they are monetary ones. as such one may not know if a building is on fire or not when the fire alarm goes off, but one may believe that it is better to be safe than sorry and thus exit the building based on that belief. So beliefs are not just necessary but seems to be unavoidable in that one musty choose (for even to deliberately not choose is a choice) and choices require beliefs, be they momentary beliefs or more prominent ones. So all this is a long winded way of agreeing with what you are saying in this video, but maybe from yet a few additional perspectives.

[@jeffreykaplan1]

I would just add two things: 1. On the metaphorical use of "perspective" one's perspective includes lots and lots of things (e.g., several first-hand experiences, several narratives that one internalized from one's parents and teachers, etc.). So on this use of the term one "perspective" includes many literal perspectives. 2. The main point, which I gather you have got, is that the fact that different people have different perspectives does not entail that there is no single objective truth of the matter.

[@RonLWilson]

@@jeffreykaplan1 Ah, so you include multiple perspectives in the term one perspective. I missed that.

[@Petticca]

Two concepts are muddied together here. One is the use of the label of truth, or what does it mean to say somethings is true, from a definitional standpoint. The other is what can the label of "being true" be applied to, so that it fits with the defined, accepted usage of the term. True is to comport to reality - to be a factually accurate _statement_ about something within reality. You can label something as "objectively" true if what is claimed as being "objectively" true can be independently verified; if ithe statement can be demonstrated to comport to reality. Something is "objectively true" If it is _not_ subject to an _individual's_ preference, ignorance, knowledge, opinion, feelings, belief or personal experience. And the problem is, there are people who wish to apply the label to something that can in no way be demonstrated to comport to reality, objectively. In the case of "morals" some like to claim that there is an "objective standard". That it is "true" that there is an "objective moral standard", however such can not be defined in a consistent manner that corresponds to what either of those words mean, and there is, ironically, frequent disagreement about what it is, and what is encompassed within the concept of this "objective moral standard". I find it interesting that the 'challenges' from religious people who hold to the idea of an "objective moral standard", are not centered around the demonstrable "standard" that is being claimed to exist and be "true" of reality. It is because "morality" is a concept that we have conceived to define, and categorize, a particular aspect of behavior, reason, and opinions that pertain to our intention for an action, particularly those actions that affect others. Morality is a value system of intentions, actions, and consequences of such. How we determine something as being a "moral" act is entirely dependent upon numerous subjective variables of our own- Knowledge, understanding, ignorance, emotional regulation, mental capacity, empathetic capacity, personal and shared ideals, societal norms, opinions and beliefs, desires, intention, and motivation, as well as our perceptions, assumptions or knowledge of those variables in someone else. It is as impossible to demonstrate an "objective moral standard", as it is to demonstrate an "objective humor standard", or an "objective emotional standard" - Because these concepts rely upon a plethora of, subjective of an individual variables, and for social context we factor in those variables that others have (or what we perceive them to have), to derive a value judgement, or determine how we feel about anything that falls under the scope of those concepts. It is objectively true that humans individually, and collectively as societies, have moral norms or ideals. It is objectively true that humans individually, and collectively as societies, can and do experience shifts in what is considered an acceptable moral norm or ideal. It is objectively true that most individuals and collective societies have a standard regarding actions that - cause the death of other humans, result in bodily harm of other humans, serve to take the property of other humans without their consent, or for personal gain, or cause the destruction of the property of another. It is also objectively true that what exactly is or is not deemed morally permissable and to what degree, within those categories, and what is or is not deemed an appropriate reactionary consequence of actions that fall within those categories, can differ wildly between individuals and societies. It is objectively true that there is no demonstrable "standard" of what is considered moral, and how what is considered immoral should be responded to. If there is an "objectively true standard" it is an empirically verifiable standard, independent of circumstance, justification or consequence. Otherwise it is a "standard" that is _subject_ to specific justifications, a reasoned to subjective standard. It is definitionally, and actually, _not_ an objectively true standard. Invoking perspective, or opinion, for concepts that rely upon personal experience, ideals and beliefs, such as when discussing morality is not an example of fallaciously reasoning about something empirically verifiable, such as a goat. If it was possible to demonstrate the fallacious reasoning as stated, you could have actually used something from the list of things within philosophy that are very rigorously argued to not be something that can be claimed to be "objectively true", such as, I don't know, say, an objective moral standard- instead of using an example of two visual vantage points, temporarily limiting the fully encompassing visual evaluation of an objectively quantifiable, accessible, examinable, verifiable, extant object, that has empirically measurable standards that can be independently corroborated to be true, as stated. As it is, if it's a "debate" within philosophy, that is to say, if it is a claim that gets to hang out, asserting it is, yet not being demonstrated to be "true" of reality, it doesn't get to defeat the view held that - you're going to have to offer up something better than an assertion of divine mandate- by claiming that by relying on, or invoking perspective one is caused not recognize it, as a whole, for what it is in reality. The goat can be demonstrated to match, in reality, the statements made about what is true of goats, in reality. Regardless of someone having limited data, the limited data points will still comport to correct parts of the stated larger data set. Objectively. It is true that an "objective moral standard" exists in reality assertion, not so much.

[@grayaj23]

I see this position on global skepticism as similar to what a lot of people believe about atheism. If "global skepticism" must necessarily be a denial of all objective truth, what words should I use to say "I have no idea if objective truths exist. I have never seen one, but can't prove a negative. As a result I am dubious of any claims that they exist." Likewise, to me, "atheism" isn't a denial. It's not a position. It's the lack of a position. I've never encountered a god or a compelling reason to believe one exists. The word I would naturally gravitate toward for both of these ideas is "skepticism". To me, that just means "I am as yet unconvinced." There may yet be gods and objective truths. I have a bias, but no concrete position on either point.

[@MichaelShaw-hy8gj]

I agree with you. He repeats over and over that all perspectives are equal but they clearly aren’t. If you go far enough back you can’t see that there is anything there at all. If you look from one angle there might be a truck obscuring your view completely. Thankfully all perspectives are equal doesn’t normally wash in court.

[@WielkiKaleson]

Not my language (for different people), but a very nice video. Much needed. People - their believes and feeling - it is an enourmously complicated subject. If you start studying this, it is hard to get even "local truths". This is what I don't like about humanities. Too difficult! Like: truth does not exist, because a group of people cannot agree on something that seems "basic". Some scholars fail repeatedly and try to draw conclusions from those failures only. Why don't they start "from 1 apple added to 1 apple in my basket means I have 2 apples" - true or false?

[@duckpotat9818]

It is very difficult to do that, because you have a million apples of different breeds and you have bananas of even more breeds then you have monkeys of a million breeds who only eat some breeds at some points hence starting with 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apple will never get to this point.

[@PersianQuant]

You really gotta educate yourself on what goats look like!

[@llort5703]

This is beyond my comprehension

[@chrisnevers7565]

I think the goat situation is not structurally equivalent across categories. In regards to morality in the analogy, you’re presupposing the existence of objective morality via the goat. You should demonstrate it with a blank space of knowledge that no human knows. This lecture reminded me of Russel’s toaster in space. The burden of proof should be on moral objectivism.

[@flyingmonkey3822]

Most people think morality is a set of rules based on first principles etc with absolutes and caveats and legal clauses spread all around in sufficient quantity to cover all bases… But it’s not and that’s heard for people to hear. Legalism is mostly about what NOT to do and as such establishes minimums. Although reason and logic apply to moral actions, they don’t define it. Rather goodness is a value proposition. If kindness is “good” in any sense AT ALL, then it’s good for every moral agent regardless of their subjective sense of it. Otherwise it’s ONLY subjectively valued. Large swaths of the population could value it, making it adhere to the golden rule: If you value it, model it But that’s not objective moral value. That’s intersubjective value. For some action to be moral (aka Good) it must be something that applies to any agent who has moral recognizance and that could be a sufficiently mentally advanced animal, or an intergalactic species. Agent A would perform action A’ to agent B such that we would recognize the action as being “good” for the pair. We know that such actions exist, and therefore objective moral actions exist. A’ could be feeding the other agent (kindness), or helping to heal them (gentleness) and we intuitively have this knowledge of “the virtues” and act on them. You have a duty to act in alignment with “the virtues” or else you are not defined by that virtue, therefore your lack of virtue is evident and calls for virtuous action. Agents being immoral, or not understanding what they are doing doesn’t make their subjective perspective erase the objective. I think that we even intersubjectively act like objective moral values and duties exist, so I don’t think that objective morality has the burden of proof either… but I’ll provide a proof in the next comment.

[@flyingmonkey3822]

Evidence: imagine the Third Reich defeated the Allies, and either killed everyone who disagreed or successfully compelled their moral beliefs on the entire world for generations until it was the ONLY moral belief system on the planet… as well as there are no aliens and sufficiently intelligent animals. Under moral relativism, we would have to admit that the Jewish genocide is not only not wrong but that it is good. We however know that genocide is wrong for at least some moral agents and that you can’t kill your way to morality. Either accept moral objectivism, or that somehow the makeup of population can possibly dictate what is right and wrong.

[@Yo_mamma_fight]

😂Was there an argument made I missed, all I heard was a bunch of statement😂 So now I really don’t believes in objectives truth😂

[@steffenjensen422]

Either there is objective truth or there isn't, but that would be an objective truth, so the notion defeats itself immediately. It's not smart, it's not profound, it's not logical, it's just a fancy claim that excites people.

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🤔 The idea of there being no objective truths is attractive, as it appears egalitarian and denies anyone a monopoly on truth. 01:52 🧐 An argument for global skepticism about truth relies on the notion that different perspectives lead to different beliefs, which then suggests there are no objective truths. 03:00 🔍 Perspectives can be visual (angles from which we see something) or metaphorical (influenced by experiences, beliefs, etc.). 06:37 🚫 The fact that perspectives differ does not imply that no beliefs are objectively true or false. 10:28 🔄 Global skepticism is self-refuting and presents logical problems. Made with HARPA AI

[@APhilosopherWhoWantstobeKing]

When Mr. Kaplan says that there are no perspectives that are better than another, I immediately consider the philosophical norm, that arguments cannot be circular. But life is circular! All the perspectives that lead to a meaningful and good life are circular arguments. And I judge that some perspectives for living are better than others. I equate perspective more with stance than view of the world. I believe that I am a creative being living in a quantum universe.

[@Synerco]

"All the perspectives that lead to a meaningful and good life are circular arguments." Could you give an example

[@i.q369]

The statement "There is no objective truth" is a self defeating statement. Since if nothing is objectively true, that would include the statement in question, making it also not true.

[@someonenotnoone]

It's self-defeating if you think statements are objective maybe.

[@kredit787]

Confusing,no perspective better than another perspective,but goat front face perspective is better to see quantity of horns.

[@juliarunn5009]

Yes, but if one were to examine how long the goat is, the side view would objectively be a better perspective. Different perspectives can reveal more information about the objective truth, but some perspectives may be simply wrong in one aspect of the truth, such as the front view of the goat being less adequate when it comes to judging the length.

[@kredit787]

@@juliarunn5009 Agree. Logically inconsistent saying no perspective is better and some perspectives are better. Conclusion: Some perspectives are better or worse.

[@mithrae4525]

@@kredit787 He said (several times) that no perspective is better IN AND OF ITSELF. Introducing some external goal (eg. counting horns) by which to differentiate one perspective as more useful than another doesn't contradict that earlier statement. Different external goals would be better suited to different perspectives, as Julia said; if you want the goat's length, side perspective is more useful, if you want its temperature infra-red would be more useful than visible light and so on.

[@a.d1287]

The truth is objective. Anyone who says otherwise is coping and likely dishonest. Many people dont want truths to objective because its convenient for them (though they often pretenciously try and hide it under some other more "noble" motive)

[@leonmills3104]

Truth is Relative

[@Synerco]

What are your reasons for believing this?

[@georgemcelroy3058]

No perspective is a better than any other? Obstructed view tickets are as good as the front row? I think not.

[@GrumpyCat-mw5xl]

Back row seats are better for seeing things from behind if you want to see what’s going on in the back of the theater. Just depends what your looking to get out of the perspective.

[@tronwillis2489]

If your at a concert, and your blind, I dont think that would matter to you. I used to go to hockey games as a kid, I had 4th row, 15th row, and nose bleed seats. I didnt mind sitting in the nosebleeds because I was really there for the atmosphere. I think hockey is rather boring lol. The value of a ticket based on proximity to the ice was irrelevant to me personally. Maybe not to someone else though.

[@Synerco]

Try watching the whole video

[@Bronco541]

I disagree with the first statement. I think the idea "there are no objective truths" is neither attractive or not attractive, it simply is the way it is. It is the most logical way of looking at it to me

[@mr.cynical2201]

The very act of asserting your opinion denounces your own opinion. There would be no reason to have it, defend it, or promote it. Logic would not exist, because you wouldn't be able to assert the value or validity of anything. You couldn't value anything, justify anything, argue for or against anything, or make an argument at all. If you said there were only subjective truths, then you would immediately create an objective truth that couldn't exist under its own premise.

[@mithrae4525]

@@mr.cynical2201 If someone says "In my opinion there are no objective truths," how does that create an objective truth? Note that denying objective truth needn't be the same as denying objective reality; the opinion could be simply that all knowledge is subjective to a greater or lesser extent, and hence even if some knowledge happens to be true it cannot be legitimately considered (cannot be known to be) an objective truth. It's just subjective knowledge which so far appears to be true.

[@LevellerTV]

@@mithrae4525 Doesn't the concept of reality require the concept of truth? If you claim that X is real, you must also claim that it is true that X is real, no?

[@mithrae4525]

@@LevellerTV I dunno. Seems to me that as we generally use and understand it, truth is a correspondence between a proposition or idea and reality. (That's also a solution to the liar and other paradoxes of self-reference incidentally, since they involve relationships of identity between a sentence/set/etc. and itself, rather than correspondence with reality; they can no more be true or false than non-propositional sentences.) In that case, if X is real that doesn't necessitate a TRUTH that X is real, though it would certainly be true that "X is real" - the proposition or idea about the reality is just as necessary for truth as the reality itself. So it would be coherent for someone to hold that there is (or may be) an objective reality while opining that there is no objective knowledge and therefore no objective truths about reality. Not sure whether anyone actually has that view, but denying objective truths in our understanding is coherent whereas denying objective truths about reality itself seems kind of self-refuting.

[@mr.cynical2201]

@@mithrae4525 the original comment said "that's just the way it is." They then follow it up by saying "at least to me." Based on how I comprehended the context I assumed that when the first statement was made, the individual was asserting that it was an objective reality that nothing can be objectively true. Because of the second statement I assumed they were then asserting that what they had previously said was only an opinion. They also said that, through logical reasoning, the only conclusion you could come to is that there are no objective truths. The deduction I made was that, according to their subjective perspective, their opinion was fallacious. Logic can only be applied if the mind applying it entertains the notion that rules and methodology are objectively more valuable to reaching a conclusion. That notion is that it is objectively true that order and structure are more valuable to finding the correct, or objectively true, conclusion. It's antithetical to their opinion about there being no objective truths. As for objective reality, there can be no such thing if there are no objective truths. The original commenter has to base the rest of their opinion on reality off their opinion on objective truths to create a universally applicable principle. The act of asserting that nothing can be objectively true, and by extension absolute, is in itself contradictory. A statement that claims that nothing can be true cannot, itself, be true. So the statement itself appears to make an argument against itself simply by existing.

[@fanuluiciorannr1xd212]

The only true perspective is the immortal science of marxist-leninism!!! *Loud USSR anthem starts playing.*

[@Paraselene_Tao]

⚒️

[@nourmasalkhi9004]

This is a bad argument. In this case the goat is an objectively true real thing. Change the goat for something that is not real like a dragon and all of a sudden it makes sense. A chinese person will tell you it's serpentine and slithers through the sky and a european will tell you it's quadrupedal and flies with a pair of wings. Edit: You are falsely equating disagreement and differing perspectives.

[@vegeta4640]

So there are kinds of dragons but still are all of them dragons. The thing depends a lot about what is the question, If u ask "whats a dragon?" the answer can differ, but the fact of exist more of one thing isn't enough to falsify my affirmation, u just show that there are more of one thing about what I say.

[@vegeta4640]

But I agree that when u will treat about things that are much more subjective like "are there superior cultures regarding to others", the whole thing can turn more complex.

[@HispanusCandor]

Hilariously, the video notes the intellectual capacity to distinguish between the literal and the metaphor...