That’s not true, though. It’s just a trick. If tricks are all it takes, then most magic tricks are justified and true in their intended implications. At least ones that do not need misdirection to distract from sleight of hand.
Not quite. Tricks are intended to make you believe something that is not true; in OP’s situation, the other people in the meeting believe that OP is sitting in the location that the background picture is taken from. They can’t actually see the background, however; instead they can see the photo of the background. Their assumption is correct, but the fact that they’re looking at a fake background means it COULD be false.
Then it’s true that happens to also be unconfirmed knowledge. Until it is confirmed, it is never actually knowledge, which makes the whole premise stupid.
It is absolutely in no way what so ever unique to have something that is presented as knowledge that happens to be false in reality.
Otherwise EVERY food advertisement would count in the same boat: “true”, but not accurately true.
No because in the case of the advert, you would not be justified in believing it is true.
The whole meme is about a very specific question in epistemology. If I flip a coin and ask you “heads or tails?”, if you guess correctly, you still have no knowledge of the true side of the coin. You guess heads, and it is actually heads but you do not " know" it is heads.
However if I showed you the coin is weighted and after a million throws it only ever came up heads, you would be justified in your belief and would “know” it came up heads.
The meme is a subversion, because the philosophers have every reason to believe the background is real, every statement them make about the room OP is in based on the background they see will be true. If they see a book in a shelf in the background, it will also be in the exact same position in the real room. They will “know” the book is there, but that knowledge is based on a deception.
It is an actively debated topic in philosophy called the Gettier Problem
Of course it’s not unusual to have something presented as knowledge that is false. That’s just lying.
The distinction here is that the conclusion is true, but it is based off of inaccurate information. The conclusion that advertisements are trying to steer you towards is false.
But the cited example is not the same as advertisement. At all. Period. What so ever.
Advertisement is based on false presentation in addition to an outright lie in the reality of the situation at hand.
What is literally pictured in modern advertisement is often not even edible product. It’s literally, within the picture, glue or other non-edible lies.
So by bringing advertisement into this, you’re actually bringing in something even less honest than what I’m talking about…
That’s not true, though. It’s just a trick. If tricks are all it takes, then most magic tricks are justified and true in their intended implications. At least ones that do not need misdirection to distract from sleight of hand.
Not quite. Tricks are intended to make you believe something that is not true; in OP’s situation, the other people in the meeting believe that OP is sitting in the location that the background picture is taken from. They can’t actually see the background, however; instead they can see the photo of the background. Their assumption is correct, but the fact that they’re looking at a fake background means it COULD be false.
The room is misrepresented. If it’s dirty, a clean image isn’t true.
Just because something could be false does not magically make it true not-knowledge.
And if the screenshot was taken just before the meeting?
Then it’s true that happens to also be unconfirmed knowledge. Until it is confirmed, it is never actually knowledge, which makes the whole premise stupid.
It is absolutely in no way what so ever unique to have something that is presented as knowledge that happens to be false in reality.
Otherwise EVERY food advertisement would count in the same boat: “true”, but not accurately true.
and we all know that shit is false as fuck.
No because in the case of the advert, you would not be justified in believing it is true.
The whole meme is about a very specific question in epistemology. If I flip a coin and ask you “heads or tails?”, if you guess correctly, you still have no knowledge of the true side of the coin. You guess heads, and it is actually heads but you do not " know" it is heads.
However if I showed you the coin is weighted and after a million throws it only ever came up heads, you would be justified in your belief and would “know” it came up heads.
The meme is a subversion, because the philosophers have every reason to believe the background is real, every statement them make about the room OP is in based on the background they see will be true. If they see a book in a shelf in the background, it will also be in the exact same position in the real room. They will “know” the book is there, but that knowledge is based on a deception.
It is an actively debated topic in philosophy called the Gettier Problem
Of course it’s not unusual to have something presented as knowledge that is false. That’s just lying.
The distinction here is that the conclusion is true, but it is based off of inaccurate information. The conclusion that advertisements are trying to steer you towards is false.
But the cited example is not the same as advertisement. At all. Period. What so ever.
Advertisement is based on false presentation in addition to an outright lie in the reality of the situation at hand.
What is literally pictured in modern advertisement is often not even edible product. It’s literally, within the picture, glue or other non-edible lies.
So by bringing advertisement into this, you’re actually bringing in something even less honest than what I’m talking about…