с 45:54 до 49:38

Для не желающих смотреть, попробую напеть.

1. Тезис (John Vervaeke (JV), чувак в красной рубашке типа polo, проф. UofT): Evidence is dependent on shared judgements of relevance.

2. Комментарий (Paul VanderKlay (PVK), чувак с седой бородой, пастор-кальвинист из Sacramento, CA):
in other words, the very data you select... - дальше в видео идёт подробный комментарий
Заключение комментария: You cannot solve any of these with data.

JD: комментарий не религиозный и очень down to earth. очень рекомендую посмотреть для понимания того, что говорит JV.

3. JV продолжает:
what we do we try to amass evidence, but evidence is dependent on shared judgements of relevance (да, повторяю тезис - JD)
if I (JV) pointed this and say it's evidence of that, and you say that's irrelevant, because here's the secret fact behind that.
If we do not have a shared apprehension of relevance then trying to point out to evidence is irrelevant because you will just dismiss or re-interpret,
you alter the evidence in any proposition I (JV) mention, and you will change its status.
And I will say but this is a central thing, and you will say that is all irrelevant.

4. JV gives concrete case and how each side dismisses another just claiming irrelevance of evidence - lab results.

5. What is the way out?
JV: the point is to realize that who is winning in that? Isn't either side.
Who is winning are anonymous forces of continual degradation of our capacity to be in contact with reality.
We are all losing.


с 45:54 до 49:38