我們談話一般分兩種情況:

1.) 閑話家常－不需要好嚴格做論述或太認真的討論。

2.) 討論有關事實性或知識性的情況－認真地討論。

當我哋會合理地指責人講廢話的時候通常出現喺情況2。

廢話即指沒有價值的 statement。

沒有價值的 statement有兩種:

1.) 係人都知嘅事實的 statement (e.g. 阿媽係女人、一加一等於二、你依家喺度睇緊手機) 或一句極有可能是對的，但完全無助於增長知識的 statement (e.g. 印度人是有鞋著、中環歌賦街夜晚10點至12點會有人行過)

2.) 係人都知唔係事實的 statement (e.g. 地球是平的、一加一不是等於二) 或說出來自己也不信 ( e.g. 武漢肺炎是來自美國、香港特首是由民主選舉產生的)

Perspectivism 反對以上 的分析，因為他們認為一句 statement 的真假值乃基於其話語之背景，即是話當我們 make 一句 statement 或者 claim一句 statement 是真或錯的時候，我們永遠都會受制於某種主觀位置的限制，所以我不足以去證明納粹集中營有發生過，亦不能夠排除 8964 只是個陰謀論的可能性，因為所有資料可以是偽造的 (再講多次，那怕是一個極低的可能性)，這個立場的表表者是 Hilary Lawson。

如果相對主義 (relativism) 係講緊 一句 statement 係冇所謂真與假 (因為所有 statement 都有其對立面)，那麼 perspectivism 就是說我們永遠冇辦法確定一句 statement 的真假價。

因為基於個人視野的限制，我們總會有極低的可能性忽略了某些能夠導致那個原先是真的 statement 變成是錯的例外因素，反之亦然。

不過，Relativism 所持的 “永遠冇所謂對與錯的” 立場，永遠都會出現一個，無論在理論上或實踐上，很明顯的自我推翻的問題。 (e.g. 你去買富豪雪糕然後你發現杯軟雪糕融化了。你不會接受融化了與未融化的只是相對的，你會要求換個一杯。)

反之，Perspectivism 的這一個觀點 ㄧ 即 任何一句statement 都會 (那怕是一個極低的可能性) 忽略了自身要面對的 counterexample or counterevidence，因此我們永遠沒辦法 100% 肯定一句 statement 的真假值。Perspectivism 這個觀點看來沒有犯自我推翻的問題，並且是 self-evident。但它基本上係一句廢話，即係話，我以上所講嘅第 1 類型廢話，即任何人都知係啱、任何情況下都可以係啱，即阿媽係女人。

Hilary Lawson 等觀點主義者會主張類似「1+1=2」和「阿媽係女人」這樣的語句只是觀點的問題。如他的著作《終結：一個關於萬物的故事》的書名所表明，他認為一切語言和理論都只是比喻和故事不能正確描述世界。

Lawson並不同意某些描述比其他描述更準確，認為世界上的每個觀點都是同等有效的，因為當我們描述世界時，我們總是被困在某個「終結（closure）」，現實總是從特定的角度來看，不同的觀點可以提供不同但同樣有效的現實描述。

Lawson 討論問題時會不斷重複類似觀點，詳細理論立場，可以參看他本人主持的 Institute of arts and ideas (IAI) 的哲學討論。

問題係，觀點主義者將一句 “純粹必然是真的廢話“ 推展到一整個哲學立場，一個認識論的哲學立場或科學方法。然後無視人類知識上的發展和進步，將一些基於累積了充分證據和充足理由的，並且其内容有相當高的認受性，因此是真的可能性較高的 statement (e.g. 所有物質受熱會膨脹，兩個對立的 statements 不能同時是真的) ，跟 沒有認受性、缺乏證據、純屬基於想像、信仰或個人立場的，因此是真的可能性較低的 statement (e.g. “我中左武肺康復得比較快不是因為有疫苗抗體，而是因為我日日打坐冥想"，"我認為中國的清零政策比其他國家更行之有效是基於我對黨之信念而非清零之結果") 睇成有同一種知識論上的價值地位。

那就是說 perspectivism 將明明是有極高可能是真或錯的 statement 與極低可能是真或錯的 statement，誤解成兩者都擁有 同樣的真假值ㄧ 兩個 statements 都有同樣比例的可能性是真或假的。

我們睇下以下例子:

Statement 1: 人類的行為是取決於各種因素例如: 自我意識、基因、腸道細菌、外來環境因素、文化或各種即時的刺激，然後透過我們的理性所綜合所作出的判斷。

Statement 2: 人類的行為是取決於自己的生殖器官跟某種神秘神明 (男性的陽具與外太空的粉紅色小飛象; 女性的陰道就會跟地心裏面的黑色鮑魚)根據量子糾纏產生某種共鳴，於是乎釋出某種精神墨汁，並注入我們的神經迴路，幫我們作出判斷。

我諗一般人不會將 statement 1 和 statement 2 都睇成擁有同一個真假值。可惜 perspectivism 唔係咁睇，因為佢哋嘅字典裏面沒有概率/概然性 (probability) 和發展 (progress) 這兩個概念。 他們將一句廢話抬到神主牌的位置，以為拋出ㄧ句 「我們永遠無法知道此 statement 是不是100% 真確」， 然後就可以摧毀所有現有知識的基礎。可笑！

The problem of Perspectivism

In general, our conversations can be divided into two situations:

1.) Casual conversations – where there is no need for strict discourse or serious discussion.

2.) Discussions about factual or knowledge-related matters – where a serious discussion is required.

When we reasonably criticize someone for talking nonsense, it usually occurs in situation 2.

Nonsense refers to statements that have no value.

There are two types of statements that have no value:

1.) Statements of facts that everyone knows (such as “my mother is a woman," “one plus one equals two," “you are looking at your what you are looking right now"), or statements that are highly likely to be true but do not contribute to knowledge growth (e.g., “Indians wear shoes," “people walk on Gough Street in Central between 10 pm and 12 am").

2.) Statements that everyone knows are not true (e.g., “the earth is flat," “one plus one does not equal two"), or statements that are said without belief (e.g., “COVID-19 came from the United States," “Hong Kong’s chief executive is elected democratically").

Perspectivism opposes the above analysis because they believe that the truth value of a statement is based on its linguistic context, discourse, culture, history and other , to used Hilary Lawson, who is the proponent of this position, “subjective closures”. That is, when we make a statement or claim that a statement is true or false, we are always limited by some subjective position. Therefore, I cannot prove that Nazi concentration camps existed, nor can I rule out the possibility that the Tiananmen Square Massacre was a conspiracy theory, because all data can be falsified (even if it is a very low possibility).

If relativism is about saying that a statement has no true or false value (because all statements have their opposites), then perspectivism says that we can never determine the truth value of a statement because we will always have a very low possibility of ignoring certain exceptional factors based on personal perspectives, causing a statement that was originally true to become false, and vice versa.

However, relativism’s position of “there is no right or wrong" will always have an obvious self-contradiction problem, both theoretically and practically. (If you go to buy a soft ice cream and you find that the cup of soft ice cream has melted, you will not accept that melting and solidifying are merely relative, and you will ask for a replacement cup.)

On the other hand, perspectivism’s point of view is that any statement might (even if it is a very low possibility) ignore the counterexample or counterevidence it faces, so we can never be 100% sure of the truth value of a statement. This perspective seems to have no self-contradiction problem and is self-evident. However, it is essentially platitudinous, that is, the type of bullshit I mentioned earlier, namely, the first type of bullshit that everyone knows is true and can be true in any situation, such as “my mother is a woman."

Hilary Lawson and other perspectivalists argue that statements like “1+1=2″ and “my mother is a woman" are merely matters of perspective. As indicated by the title of his book “Closure: A Story of Everything," Lawson believes that all language and theories are metaphors and stories that cannot accurately describe the world.

He disagrees with the idea that certain descriptions are more accurate than others, asserting that every perspective is equally valid. According to Lawson, when we describe the world, we are always trapped in a certain “closure," and reality is always seen from a specific angle. Different perspectives can provide different yet equally valid descriptions of reality. For a more detailed theoretical stance, you can refer to some of the philosophy discussions at the Institute of Arts and Ideas (IAI) that were participated in by Hilary Lawson, the founder of the organization himself.

The problem is that perspectivism takes a purely and platitudinous true statement and extends it to a whole philosophical position, an epistemological philosophical or scientific method. It then ignores the development and progress of human knowledge and regards some statements that are based on sufficient evidence and sufficient reasons and have a considerable degree of acceptability and are therefore likely to be true (such as “all matter expands when heated," “two opposing statements cannot both be true"), and statements that lack acceptability, evidence, and are based purely on imagination, belief, or personal perspectives, and are therefore less likely to be true (such as “I recovered from COVID-19 quickly not because of the vaccine, but because I meditated every day," “I believe that China’s zero-tolerance policy is more effective than other countries’ policies, based on my faith in the Party rather than the results of zero-tolerance.") as having the same epistemological weight and value.

That is to say, perspectivism misunderstands the fact that statements that are highly likely to be true or false and statements that are less likely to be true or false have the same truth value.

Let’s look at the our last examples:

Statement 1: Human behavior is determined by various factors such as self-awareness, genes, gut bacteria, external environmental factors, culture, or various immediate stimuli and our rational judgment.

Statement 2: Human behavior is determined by one’s own reproductive organs and some mysterious deity (male genitalia and a pink flying elephant from outer space; female genitalia will resonate with a black abalone inside the earth’s crust), producing some kind of spiritual ink through quantum entanglement, which is then injected into our neural circuits to help us make judgments.

I don’t think most people would consider Statement 1 and Statement 2 to have the same truth value. Unfortunately, perspectivism does not see it that way because their dictionary does not include the concepts of probability and progress. They elevate a platitudinous statement to a sacrosanct position, claiming that by saying “we can never know if this statement is 100% true," they can destroy the foundation of all existing knowledge. How ridiculous!

While it is always true that there are limits to human knowledge and understanding, it is not productive to elevate platitudes to a sacrosanct position in order to undermine existing knowledge. In fact, this approach can be seen as a cop-out from engaging in meaningful discourse and critical thinking. It is important to recognize the value of evidence-based reasoning and to strive towards a deeper understanding of the world around us, rather than resorting to empty rhetoric and relativism, and perspectivism!

Reference:

Lawson, H. (2001). Closure: A story of everything. Routledge.