the construct you described allows one to invalidate others' beliefs as being "wrong" because they don't adhere to the same reference point as yourself
Belief based in empirical evidence is at least bound to that evidence.
Belief unmoored from empiricism --- blind faith or revelation --- suffers no such limits. Your criticism would apply all the more so to same, with the further failing that others' beliefs are "wrong" because they ... are simply revealed or adopted faiths. Which is frequently observed.
If my evidence-based belief differs from your evidence-based belief, then we can compare evidence. Evidence does not have to be directly experienced (though for various reasons of psychological evolution we tend often to more highly weight that which is); we can also rely on evidence presented by other trustworthy witnesses. There are numerous social institutions dedicated to precisely this (science, courts, journalism, politics, ...)
The factory owner and the factory worker can look at the same set of data and arrive at completely different world views.
The Empire Did Nothing Wrong™
Was Lucifer actually incorrect in his position in the Garden of Eden?
I'm pointing out how completely different and valid perspectives can be derived from the same set of data, the same circumstance.
The problem arises when one claims their perspective was "inflicted" upon them by some uncompromising, external agent, which implies there is no choice in the matter, which is absurd because there most certainly is.
I don't think you're wrong, by the way, I just see things a little differently.
But many sidedness is not the any sideness which revealed or blind-faith belief permits. Experiential understanding is bound to and by that experience. Further, the cases you're referring to largely discuss social relational worldviews which are informed by status, standing, and affiliation within a society or culture. There are of course non-social instances of multiple interpretations, such as wave-particle duality, in which how one looks at a phenomenon influences the model arrived. at.
Factory owner and worker at least have beleif and understanding grounded in experience, and might be convinced of or sympathetic to the validity of views generated by the alternate experience. Your "which implies there is no choice" is reading meaning to my comment I did not intend and disagree with strongly.
The fact that people see things differently, that is, arrive at different conclusions based on different empirical evidence or experience is in fact my point.
It might be more ... useful to think of models, understanding, and/or knowledge (largely interchangeable terms) as having use value rather than truth value.
That is, good models are useful, in some way.
Usefulness, like value, is itself relative and depends on intent, goals, and starting positions.
That said, there are models with greater or usefulness over a wide range of circumstances. Holding to a model which is demonstrably inferior in this regard might well be considered "wrong", in this sense.
Absolutely. This is exactly what I do, actually. I argue from the perspective of many models at once, assign weights and priorities and then arrive at some conclusion with an estimated probability of effectiveness or usefulness depending on use case. Truth simply is and is also unknowable at the same time.
Personally, I would only make one modification here for my own purposes:
> Holding to a model which is demonstrably inferior in this regard might well be considered "wrong" to me.
I know what is right and wrong for me and to me, but stop short of extending that judgement outside my person. That's just me though.
Belief based in empirical evidence is at least bound to that evidence.
Belief unmoored from empiricism --- blind faith or revelation --- suffers no such limits. Your criticism would apply all the more so to same, with the further failing that others' beliefs are "wrong" because they ... are simply revealed or adopted faiths. Which is frequently observed.
If my evidence-based belief differs from your evidence-based belief, then we can compare evidence. Evidence does not have to be directly experienced (though for various reasons of psychological evolution we tend often to more highly weight that which is); we can also rely on evidence presented by other trustworthy witnesses. There are numerous social institutions dedicated to precisely this (science, courts, journalism, politics, ...)