If there is a difference in cognitive ability, then there is a discrepancy in observed facts.

For a proposition X, Mr. A thinks "it is clear from observed facts" and Mr. B thinks "there is no such observed fact".

From Mr. A, Mr. B appears to be "a fool with inferior cognitive abilities. - Cognitive Resolution From Mr. B, Mr. A appears to be "a madman who believes in something that does not exist. - Unsubstantiated Confidence.

No one knows which is right.

• This is a hypothesis, we just haven't found a solution at the moment.

• Sometimes B's side claims their righteousness by the sheer number of people, but this is not an argument.

  • Because there are instances where the majority was stupid.
    • This, too, will only deepen the conflict on A's side, as he will see it as "you are a fool with inferior historical awareness skills to use that as an argument.
    • Unsubstantiated delusion that the majority is right.

• A series of pictures of two people saying different things

• No picture yet.

• I mean, it's one level of meta.

  • Because a series where two people say different things is generally "two people observe the same thing and what they perceive is different".

Further Development

• Doesn't B have an unfounded confidence in proposition Y that "I can recognize the basis for A's belief that proposition X is true"?

supplement

• If it's something that can be verified by experimentation, then we can experiment and see which one is right.
  • For example, if the proposition is "this will happen in 50 years," you have to wait 50 years.

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/認知能力に差があるなら観測事実も食い違う using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.