For those who believe the world is flat or that Religion isnt real etc etc

[Larry the boss]

Why do you believe anything else you were taught in life? How do we know anything taught in History was real??? we get the same news from the same sources, so how can you choose what is real and what is not?

[COVID-19]

Errol Spence drives like an idiot.

[FredRekk]

Because we make **** up all the time.

Santa Claus, Cupid, toothfairy, yeah we made all that **** up too.

And as a kid you’re told those beings are real. Then you get older and realize it’s all a bunch of BS.

[aboutfkntime]

Why do you believe anything else you were taught in life? How do we know anything taught in History was real??? we get the same news from the same sources, so how can you choose what is real and what is not?

ABC News Apologizes for " Mistakenly " Airing Kentucky Gun Range Video as Syria Coverage...
https://www.foxnews.com/media/abc-ne...o-syria-turkey

how the fcuk could they possibly get those video files mixed up... ?

... how would that even be slightly possible... ?

[aboutfkntime]

someone had to dig real deep to find that old training footage from 2017

[FredRekk]

Why do you believe anything else you were taught in life? How do we know anything taught in History was real??? we get the same news from the same sources, so how can you choose what is real and what is not?

Instinct and Intuition.
Knowing things without having all the details, or correct details.

Some people are just smarter than others...

[Split Decision]

common sense used to come in to play but thats apparently diminished in our times

[billeau2]

Why do you believe anything else you were taught in life? How do we know anything taught in History was real??? we get the same news from the same sources, so how can you choose what is real and what is not?

Thats a real rabbit hole my friend. But us philosophers have been going through those warrens for centuries now.

Knowing, or epistemology is not an absolute, it is a process that produced consistency and usefulness, not a way to find a truth that is above all others. When Edmund Husserl taught us the dynamics of how we interpet things, he laid out the process as a phenomenological inquiry. It allowed us to find a pure, unfettered understanding of how we grasp with our sense and form conclusions with our mental appuratus. But it was Bishop Berkely who demonstrated that what we in fact know is that a sensory impression registers on our Retina, through the nerves in our hands and skin, vibrating the ear drum, and through molecules that the nose recognizes.

None of these sensory impressions are things. They are merely impressions of lenght, breadth, etc. The idea that we are sitting in a chair is consensus reality. We have agreed that when our sense register a certain impression together, we all have a common experience of the object that causes the senses to act. But we must always remember that there is no "chair" there is an object that has characteristics that register to our senses a certain way.

The proof of this is how a blind person knows what a chair is. They cannot see the chair. And how about creatures with different capacities? how would they encounter the breadth, lenght and qualities of a chair?

So we start out with what I would call a consensus reality. We name objects based on how we encounter them as substance initially. What about more abstract concepts? How do we encounter sadness? If enough people can describe a concept then we can create this same consensus. One could argue therefore that all understanding is based on our understanding of how we encounter objects in our environment.

One simply must remember that there are no chairs, tables, books in the environment...there are objects with qualities that our senses allow us to experience and describe. And these descriptions can vary! lets look at snow via what is called the Worfian Hypothesis. To Benjamin Whorf language creates a reality... Its an outdated notion but for our purposes, your question it is workable. So...We have a word for "snow", the Eskimos have 20 something words for "snow" because in their culture, there is a different emphasis and importance of this object.

So when you ask about how we know the truth of history, of the world, etc? Here is what we know: people manipulate perception. We do it quite naturally, even when no nefarious effects are desired. What we can do is take a consensus of the opinions put fourth and form out own understanding.

The flat earth is ridiculous because we have impressions to the contrary. But I will say I agree with them on a couple of points: a) when you look at the Earth it is not a ball it is a pulsating oval responding to the forces that hold it in balance. No not flat, but also not a big blue perfect circle.

b) We havent a clue about the space that we cannot measure accurately at a great distance. If you look at how perception has evolved, how our physics has evolved and the little bit we are capable of achieving outside of normal affects...NASA and no scientist has a clue about the bigger theories regarding the Universe. Our physics evolved from measurement and abstract qualities of measurement. We cannot even demonstrate predictable Quantum effects half the time!

So as someone with intelligence I say to myself: Our physics posits that everything is a wave or particle, yet we cannot show gravity as a particle or wave that we can control...And we then say that the speed of light is the limit to the Universe and big things...I would not buy this. My point is that we cannot yet fully grasp gravity because while we know it exists we cannot measure it to a point where we can control its application. Yet in our physics we depend on gravity to describe why certain immutable laws exist. This is fine except, it limits our inquiries considerably. Travel, time space etc are all concepts that developed with no recourse application and control. So why would i believe pronouncements from scientists speaking about the Universe and beyond?

I used the above example to show how one can look at all ideas and theories regarding history and what to think. Simply PUt: If we understand the evolution of our thinking, knowing, then we know its limits. If we understand the process of consensus reality, then we know how to gather information. If I want to understand the cause of the civil war there are consensus' to look at: Everything from Southern patriots who fly old rebel, to Black activists who think it was about slavery and everything in between. Then you will have all the ideas and can judge for oneself.

Not very efficient is it? But its what we have.

[man down]

common sense used to come in to play but thats apparently diminished in our times

This is the main issue, you nailed it.

[RightJab]

Instinct and Intuition.
Knowing things without having all the details, or correct details.

Some people are just smarter than others...

Yes, the unknown 'known' ive heard that concept been called that before somwhere.

As you say assuming said individual has even a touch above average intelligence, without any study/info a great many people kind of already know things that they didnt know they knew if that makes sense.

That instinct, ive always wondered why and what its all about, ive suspected that its maybe passed in the dna through generations, sort of under the surface/subconscious knowledge most of us have.

To go a bit 'out there' with it, its like dna is biological coding for lack of a better term, some peoples brains have it downloaded/installed better than others.

Good Post FredRekk! 👍