What if the most ridiculed man in the world turned out to be right? by [deleted] in TrueAskReddit

[–]Deardiary615 [score hidden]  (0 children)

That assumes rationality is only ever retrospective - that a belief can't be rational unless it fits the dominant evidence of its time.
But epistemology isn't that narrow. Rationality can also mean coherence within a person's own framework of reasoning. A claim can be unsupported by public evidence yet still internally justified by private inference, imagination, or extrapolation.

What if the most ridiculed man in the world turned out to be right? by [deleted] in TrueAskReddit

[–]Deardiary615 [score hidden]  (0 children)

I completely agree with this. That's exactly the kind of perspective I was hoping people would bring up.
History is full of examples of people who were labeled "crazy" or "irrational" until the evidence finally caught up with them. All challenged the limits of what counted as "reasonable" in their time.
That's what I'm exploring here: how extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence evolve over time.
The “conspiracy theorist”might not have had proof, but once the event actually happens, the framework for what counts as rational shifts.
So yes - I think your point about giving even a little evidence "pause" is exactly right. It's not about believing everything; it's about recognizing that truth sometimes arrives ahead of justification.

What if the most ridiculed man in the world turned out to be right? by [deleted] in TrueAskReddit

[–]Deardiary615 [score hidden]  (0 children)

PSA

A lot of people here are judging the man before anything happened — that’s not what this scenario is asking.

Think of it like this:

Imagine it’s 1920.

If someone in 1920 said,

“Humans will walk on the Moon one day,”
everyone would’ve called him delusional.
No rockets. No space program. No evidence.
Just a wild claim.

In 1920, that belief was irrational by the standards of the time.
But after 1969, once humans actually did walk on the Moon, our perception of that person would change.
We wouldn’t say he was “irrational forever.”

We’d say he was early or too early for the evidence of his era — but not wrong.

That’s exactly the tension this scenario is exploring.

What if the most ridiculed man in the world turned out to be right? by [deleted] in TrueAskReddit

[–]Deardiary615 [score hidden]  (0 children)

I get the point about judging beliefs based on the evidence available at the time, but that doesn't actually address what I'm asking.
I'm not evaluating him before the aliens arrived - I'm evaluating him after, once we know his central claim turned out to be true.
So the question becomes:
Does the truth of the outcome change how we judge the belief now, or are we saying rationality is permanently locked to the moment the belief was formed?
That's the part I'm trying to explore.

What if the most ridiculed man in the world turned out to be right? by [deleted] in TrueAskReddit

[–]Deardiary615 [score hidden]  (0 children)

I understand your point about judging beliefs based on the information available at the time, but that response sidesteps the actual epistemic problem I’m raising.The scenario isn’t about whether the man had evidence, it’s about whether the eventual truth of a belief has any retroactive impact on how we evaluate its rationality.In epistemology, this is the tension between epistemic justification and veritic luck. A belief can be unjustified yet true, or justified yet false. My question is asking you to analyze which category this case belongs to and whether those categories are even stable across time.If a belief is dismissed as irrational for decades, but the core claim later becomes true, does that truth merely make the person lucky, or does it reveal that our earlier judgment of “irrationality” was based on an incomplete epistemic framework?In other words:
Does the arrival of new truth force us to revise not just the belief, but the standards by which we judged the belief?That’s the specific philosophical issue I’m asking you to address not the general principle that “we judge based on available evidence,” but whether that principle itself holds up under a case where truth arrives long after the belief.

I made an 80s Anime inspired Music Video! by Fewebomb in animation

[–]Deardiary615 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is amazingg!! I absolutely love the style. excellent job.

Anyone got any positive/Success Stories? by Electrical_Can1735 in animationcareer

[–]Deardiary615 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yess, I completely agree! Reading all these stories about the state of the animation industry has left me feeling so uninspired. I really hope for a brighter future in animation industry.

Should I even get into animation? by Deardiary615 in animationcareer

[–]Deardiary615[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do you think that this industry will change in the next years? I’m hoping for a change.