007. [Audio/also a couple of other things.]

[scientificflair]

[AUDIO]

[More violin music over Descole's feed today; it's an incredibly simplified version of Song of the Stars - although really, someone ought to teach him the Jeopardy theme, considering how much that instrument gets whipped out when he's feeling like bombarding the network with both the fact that he can't hold all his feels, and he has something best described as "pseudo-philosophical what" to say.

As before, he plays for a while before the melody fades and shifts into something long and drawn-out, idling while he speaks; the sound is quieter, as though the violin has been directed away from the 'Gear a bit.]

There's a famous thought experiment that poses the following:

Imagine yourself standing outside a large field; you see, in the distance, what looks to you to be a specific animal - for simplicity's sake, let's say a bull. You then form the belief that there is a bull in the field. And you are correct - there is, indeed, a bull in the field. However, the bull is lying down behind a hill, just outside your line of vision; you can't see it from your current position. Moreover, what you actually saw was a tarp that had gotten tangled over a bush; from outside the field, it looked like a bull, but actually wasn't anything of the sort.

Again, you were factually correct, and you had a well-justified true belief that there was a bull in the field. However, can you really say you knew?

[He pauses for a moment, continuing to play quietly while he thinks.]

And if you were to find yourself in such a situation - where a belief is true and well-justified, and yet the proof of it being true isn't where you believe it is - would you say that your belief was any less valid?

[And with that, the feed cuts off.]


[PRIVATE TEXT TO FLUTTERSHY]

Miss Fluttershy,

I have something to ask you, should it not be an inconvenience.


[PRIVATE TEXT TO COLONEL ARCHER]

There's something that we need to discuss.

Now.

Comments

[voice]

[icansolvethemtoo]

[She will forever be drawn in by the music, but that inquiry definitely has her puzzled. The Professor would be able to solve this, she's certain... Biting back a sigh, she decides to give it a go.]

So... To clarify, there is truly a bull in the field, but what meets your eye is actually a tarp with a bush that appears to be a bull? Is that the scenario?

[TEXT - PRIVATE]

[determinator]

Is there now?

Video - Imogen is lightly swaying and dancing to the music.

[for_realsies]

Hmm.

I guess it depends on if you say "There is a bull in the field" or if you say "I saw a bull in the field."

One of those is right, even if you got there from the wrong thing, but the other is wrong.

But the more important question is if the bull is friendly or not!

[usedconfusion]

...are you trying to makes people's brains hurt?

Private Text

[3_butterflies]

What is it???

[Audio]

[reallybeloved]

Ah, one of those perspective reality questions. I remember those from intro to philosophy.

audio;

[usedlaserbeam]

I suppose I might find myself asking why it matters if I "knew", really. If my belief caused me to reach a conclusion, and that conclusion was ultimately factually true, isn't that somewhat analogous to "the ends justify the means"? Perhaps the factually true result justifies the belief, regardless of its mistaken premise.

[audio]

[snapandscoot]

[[Emmy opens the audio feed in order to respond to him, but as the music flows through her Gear she stops and listens to it. It's familiar, of course, and she unconsciously begins to hum the vocal accompaniment, before quickly snapping herself out of it when she realise that he, ah...could probably here her. Yes. Right.]]

You certainly come up with some interesting puzzles. Do I get a hint?

[Video]

[seetheflower]

If a bull was sleeping in the field, I surely wouldn't go near it. Bulls are cute, but I know they can get angry if you disturb them!

[ The point flies over her head by a thousand miles. ]

You're also good with that violin, mister!

[voice]

[grapecape]

[.....operation figure out what this means: commence]

Truth is distinct from fact. In this case, you couldn't be blamed for honestly expressing what you believed to be true, even if it turned out to be fact only by technicality.

As for the validity of beliefs...well, that's simply how perception works, isn't it? By nature, we assume a lot about the parts of the world we can't perceive. The authenticity of a grazing bull, for instance, but also the dangers that might be encountered around corners, or the intentions of the people around us, or things far more mundane than that. It's important to allow for variable perception when considering anything so steeped in perception as "belief" and "truth".


This isn't really related, but do you own many books? [extremely subtle gift-related questions]