— ZenDarva (@ZenDarva) November 29, 2022You'll note in the "correction" (which may or may not be tongue-in-cheek) the desperate attempt to establish an "objective" stance upon which to decide the question.
The truth is that, in the picture, it's a "6" or a "9" depending on where you stand. Orientation to outside objects is not dispositive unless you allow for them in the hypothetical (which this is). In the illustration there is intentionally no further information allowing for "proper" orientation. In court we call the argument of the "objector" here "assuming facts not in evidence." In logic, we simply say you're changing the terms of the proposition Or, as my torts professor (you see how applicable this is!) said: "Change the facts, change the outcome."
And by what authority do you change the facts? Because the ambiguity is unacceptable? And yet, it's there. Whether it is a "6" or a "9" really does depend on your point of view.
I have a set of 24 jigsaw puzzles, packaged as an "Advent Calendar" of puzzles to assemble for the 24 days of December before the 25th. They are numbered so you can do them in "order," if you want (who's going to police you? The fictional "objector" in our example?). The other night I plucked out number 6 (the numbers are on one end of each box.). The next night I realized I'd grabbed number 9, because I looked at it from the wrong direction.
In the sequence of the boxes, and compared to "6", I could see I'd picked the wrong box. But set them side by side, and from one side 6 is 9, and 9 is 6. Only by appealing to other facts (which, in this instance, are in evidence) can you determine which is which. And, of course, it doesn’t really matter.
It's not a question of research or being "uninformed." It's a question of point of view. Objectively, in the illustration, both figures are right. Or, as John Fowles noted in his novel Daniel Martin, the truth is in the river between. (Which is another metaphor, and story; just go with it.)
It happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment