OK, observed reality, OUT.
Now, how do we make decisions?
How are we to evaluate the events of the world?
Without Observing, evaluating, comparing, we're lost.

 I said Observed Reality is a poor qualifier for the accuracy of information.  I never said it has no value.  

 The problem is saying information must be true because it aligns with one's Observed Reality.  Not because there is objective truth but because it just aligns with one's subjective Observations in their life.  What happens when someone simply chooses to not Observe something?

 An example is for years you have been accurately informed that the FDA never has, and can not, restrict off-label use of Ivermectin.  You still post information saying the FDA restricted Ivermectin.  This is because you refuse to Observe that is a lie, combined with Observations about government over-reach and duplicity.  You can have both a lying government and an FDA that never restricted Ivermectin - but your Observed Reality appears to prohibit that.  


 Another example is humans that Observe man-made climate change.  They simply refuse to Observe natural climate models and only Observe man-made change models.   Now every news story on a flood is "proof" of man-made climate change - after all it aligns perfectly with Observed Reality.  


 In chemistry, in all science, the First Rule is
Observation.

 That includes Observing what an article says and not just blindly posting it and arguing with human's that read it for you.  Again the defense being Observed Reality as a qualifier, so no need to actually read the article, then telling people that did read the information that they must be wrong makes sense.  Their assessment of the information you never even looked at doesn't align with Observed Reality.

 Observed Reality is a poor qualifier for information.  Information that directly conflicts with your Observations can be true.

So person saw someone,
holding a cell phone, walking down the street, run into a light post, and fall down.

That happened, it was REALITY !

 Agreed.  The only person claiming "reality isn't really real" is you.  Single event Observations have never been disagreed upon, you however will not Observe this.


Information that matches or does not match, is irrelevant to, the first hand OBSERVED REALITY.

 Listening to decades of car crash witnesses and comparing it to dashcam footage makes me doubt firsthand experience is as accurate as many think.   So when someone Observes a human on a cellphone walk into a pole and fall down, then another says they Observed that same human try to sidestep something on the ground, twist an ankle hit the pole then fall - who's Observed Reality is real?

 The human that Observed a person on a cellphone walk into a pole will think any article online about cellphones being distracting to be accurate based off their Observed Reality - after all they Observed a cellphone distracted human walk right into a pole.

 The human that Observed a person on a cellphone dodge an obstacle, the slip into a pole will think any article online about cellphones being distracting to be inaccurate based off their Observed Reality - after all they Observed a cellphone distracted dodge a dog-turd and slip into a pole.


 Observed Reality is a poor qualifier because tow humans Observed a single event two different ways.  



If someone thinks, that, 'observed reality', is false. based on what someone else says,
      again,
  Diddly Squat

 Nobody claimed any of this.  I said Observed Reality is a poor qualifier for deciding if data or reference is true.  You will not Observe this.  So you are sticking to the Observing single events argument, which makes sense because in your Reality I am saying reality isn't really real and am discounting lived experience.  

Eegore wrote on Today at 07:15:42:


You IMPLIED 'reality isn't really real'  many times !

You believe a Reality OBSERVED, is a poor qualifier.

Observed Reality is always real.
The reason, that thing happened, is a Opinion, from numerous sources.

So just keep putting, someones opinion, above what someone sees.

Do not confuse a Car accident, (or like), where one Reality Observer, was in the car, one was in front, one in the back, one on each side, to be all the same thing, then dismiss because is is not

 (Excluding Magician's)

Isn't it also about assumptions? You saw someone walk into the lamppost and lose the phone. But was it really a phone? Several people who see the same thing will all have a different story about what happened.
In addition, memory is something unreliable. So the chance that you will tell exactly what happened is very small. And then also that we are so used to lying, that we no longer realize that we are doing it.

 This is true.  However actual visual Observation of an event has never been what I am talking about.  MnSpring just keeps trying to make a futile diversionary argument using the tactic.  

 What this is about is deciding the evidentiary value of data or reference based off one's personal Observations.  Meaning if I choose to only Observe man-made climate change data, and refuse to Observe any naturally occurring climate change data - my Observed Reality will be all weather events are caused by man.  So data or reference that aligns with my Observed reality is true, and others are false.  This is why Social Media is accepted as reliable news, even though anyone can just make it up at any time.

 This also creates a self-fulfilling 100% accurate rate of assessment because any data (not personally witnessed events) that contradicts my personal Observations is simply not Observed.  Its also asinine to think what little I see is happening the same way across the entire planet.  

Eegore wrote on Today at 11:03:29:


CONGRATULATIONS !

You just got the last word in !

When you remember something, you do not remember the event. You remember your last memory of the event. So, memory, unsupported by new learning, is susceptible to replicative fading, just like a photo that you copy and keep copying the copies--- eventually it becomes useless.

That's why journalism is so important, though, in the US, where nobody READS, it's become a joke.


 Agreed.  How Observed Reality is being applied here is not really about the accurate memory of a specific event.  It is about justifying that data, (which in most cases is never looked at) can be decided right or wrong based off Observed Reality.

 If I am told the results of data, that I never looked at for myself, has information that aligns with my Observed Reality, it's true.  If not, then it's false.  


 JoG's vaccine information is a good example.  He has Observed vaccine change a family member's personality.  So now information saying vaccines cause personality change is true because it aligns with his Observed Reality.  So when a high school kid creates a FB post making up nonsense out of thin air, it will be argued as factual, not because JoG ever looked at the information, but because it aligns with his Observed Reality.  

 MnSpring will try to claim I am implying this has to do with one human witnessing one thing with their own eyes.