Are you a naïve realist?
&gt;First, the naïve realist believes that their perceptions are realistic and “objective.” Accordingly, other people (at least, reasonable other people) should share their beliefs, preferences, and convictions. Second, the naïve realist expects that any reasonable, open-minded person will be persuaded to agree with the naïve realist if there is disagreement between parties. If there is disagreement, and if the disagreeing party is a reasonable person, presenting the “real facts” should restore harmony. Third, anyone who disagrees with the naïve realist after the presentation of real facts is unreasonable, biased, or irrational.<p>Well, apart from the choice in naming, you can count me in as a &quot;naive realist&quot; then. I&#x27;d prefer &quot;rationalism&quot; or &quot;ideologue&quot; or &quot;fundamentalism&quot; (the quest to seek the least amount of assumptions to explain our observations).<p>The beautiful thing about logic and mathematics is that derivations &#x2F; proofs can be verified mechanically: if even a dumb computer can follow and verify the reasoning, so can indeed a <i>reasonable person</i>.<p>So next there&#x27;s disputes on observation, say in science, measurements for example. In theory standard measurement equipment and even cables could be produced in controlled conditions such that each cable end cryptographically signs its connection to some device port only after verifying a timely signed timestamped response to a challenge, a response by some external entity (centralized or decentralized). The device say an oscilloscope could similarly sign the measurements it made, when the circuit was in what topology etc... and all of these could have custom security envelopes with PUF&#x27;s ... All the tools and assembly lines where those cables, oscilloscopes, etc are produced would have similar security controls in a way that the group can audit (at least statistically) that the expected intrusion rate is marginally low...<p>A popular saying or adage goes like &quot;In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there is.&quot;<p>I disagree not with the figurative meaning but with the literal one:<p>There really is no difference between theory and practice.<p>But there is a big difference between theory and <i>malpractice</i>.<p>These psychologists and philosophers really seem to think they harbor very rare insights. But even a toddler knows different people have different opinions, views, ... nihil nove sub sole...<p>It&#x27;s a very sad world when people are stigmatized into nihilism in order to maintain the status quo.<p>Oh how I yearn to live in a publically verifiable society, with verifiable desiderata.