I can't believe that this is how I find the most pedagogical counterexample I've ever seen to true justified belief being knowledge hahaha
post
Oh fuck that means you dont have to clean before a video call... now i just need to find people to video call
I just take a photo of myself listening attentively. It fools half of the attendants and amuses the rest.
depends, i know and work in 3d realism vfx stuff, and sometimes i get fooled if a background is real or just a render
i do agree with the later, people do be kinda too fixated on making sure they aren't holding justified false beliefs. my personal belief is that everyone (including me) are scared of uncertainty. trying to live with the idea that u cant be certain about ur beliefs is scary
I did this on work calls, except I flipped it upside down.
how did people react
Well hello there Mr. Baudrillard. Are we drawing 1:1 scale maps again?
u must elaborate
It's a nod to something the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard wrote in his essay The Precession of the Simulacra.
His entire work revolves around Simulacra, copies of real things that end up replacing reality until eventually the copy is the reality, with no original that it is derived from.
One of his inspirations in the aforementioned essay is a short story by Jorge Luis Borges about a king who orders his mapmakers to draw him the most accurate map ever, which ends up being in 1:1 scale. An obviously nonsensical exercise, much like Mr. Rashed's endeavor to replace his actual background with an identical copy just to prove a point.
That's not true, though. It's just a trick. If tricks are all it takes, then most magic tricks are justified and true in their intended implications. At least ones that do not need misdirection to distract from sleight of hand.
Not quite. Tricks are intended to make you believe something that is not true; in OP's situation, the other people in the meeting believe that OP is sitting in the location that the background picture is taken from. They can't actually see the background, however; instead they can see the photo of the background. Their assumption is correct, but the fact that they're looking at a fake background means it COULD be false.
The room is misrepresented. If it's dirty, a clean image isn't true.
Just because something could be false does not magically make it true not-knowledge.
And if the screenshot was taken just before the meeting?
Then it's true that happens to also be unconfirmed knowledge. Until it is confirmed, it is never actually knowledge, which makes the whole premise stupid.
It is absolutely in no way what so ever unique to have something that is presented as knowledge that happens to be false in reality.
Otherwise EVERY food advertisement would count in the same boat: "true", but not accurately true.
and we all know that shit is false as fuck.
Of course it's not unusual to have something presented as knowledge that is false. That's just lying.
The distinction here is that the conclusion is true, but it is based off of inaccurate information. The conclusion that advertisements are trying to steer you towards is false.
But the cited example is not the same as advertisement. At all. Period. What so ever.
Advertisement is based on false presentation in addition to an outright lie in the reality of the situation at hand.
What is literally pictured in modern advertisement is often not even edible product. It's literally, within the picture, glue or other non-edible lies.
So by bringing advertisement into this, you're actually bringing in something even less honest than what I'm talking about...
top 33 comments