Despite the adage “seeing is believing,” what you see isn’t always what you get. Consider the viral dress photo of 2015 that split viewers into two camps: one who said the dress was white and gold and one who said it was black and blue. More than just a fun optical illusion, the phenomenon highlighted how multiple people can look at the same image or event and walk away with strikingly different interpretations. Such differences in perception can take on far greater weight when the stakes are high. To some viewers, police body camera footage can show blatant use of excessive force, while others watch the same clip and see an officer acting responsibly. Whose reality is the “real” one?

You want practical answer or philosophical? Modern materialism states that there is only one reality which we analyze with the tools we possess. Colors are here even if the blind can't see it. Colors are the primitive abstraction too, actually, and depends on some brain (tool) nuances. From the practical point of view? Who has the bigger stick that is right.

Sounds like you didn't read the article.

No, I just answered the question in the title.

With that incoherent mess? The question is a headline for the article linked.

only unbiased observation is relevant. people who were part of or work for the place that did the inpropriaty or the ones who put them in charge should not be taken into account. anyone who could profit or has a vested interest.

The article points out there is no such thing as unbiased observation.

thats one of those things that is technically true. there is massive obvious bias and then bias made of a persons preconceptions or such. massive obvious bias like where you paycheck comes from should not be taken into account.

I'm so tempted to start banning people who comment without reading the article.

I would go with it. Its your community. Make it what you want it to be. Just don't complain later about a lack of engagement.

There's so much "post-processing" going on in the brain -- really our entire experience is post-processed, how else can you combine the vision of two eyeballs into a single coherent image? And then to incorporate the other senses into a coherent model of the world around you?!?! Really incredible stuff.

I'd rather get no notifications than random nonsense from people who didn't actually engage with the article.

Ok. yeah so I would go forward with the idea then.