I used wikipedia for the following terms for convenience only if anyone has better definitions from a source they find to be of credible nature feel free to use it.
Reality:
Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist." The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. On a much broader and more subjective level, the private experiences, curiosity, inquiry, and selectivity involved in the personal interpretation of an event shapes reality as seen by one and only one individual and hence is called phenomenological. A common colloquial usage would have "reality" mean "perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes toward reality," as in "My reality is not your reality." This is often used just as a colloquialism indicating that the parties to a conversation agree, or should agree, not to quibble over deeply different conceptions of what is real. For example, in a religious discussion between friends, one might say (attempting humor), "You might disagree, but in my reality, everyone goes to heaven."
Reality can be defined in a way that links it to worldviews or parts of them (conceptual frameworks): Reality is the totality of all things, structures (actual and conceptual), events (past and present) and phenomena, whether observable or not. It is what a worldview (whether it be based on individual or shared human experience) ultimately attempts to describe or map.
Certain ideas from physics, philosophy, sociology, literary criticism, and other fields shape various theories of reality. One such belief is that there simply and literally is no reality beyond the perceptions or beliefs we each have about reality. Such attitudes are summarized in the popular statement, "Perception is reality" or "Life is how you perceive reality" or "reality is what you can get away
Truth:
According to the less realist trends in philosophy, such as postmodernism/post-structuralism, truth is subjective. When two or more individuals agree upon the interpretation and experience of a particular event, a consensus about an event and its experience begins to be formed. This being common to a few individuals or a larger group, then becomes the 'truth' as seen and agreed upon by a certain set of people — the consensus reality. Thus one particular group may have a certain set of agreed truths, while another group might have a different set of consensual 'truths'. This lets different communities and societies have varied and extremely different notions of reality and truth of the external world. The religion and beliefs of people or communities are a fine example of this level of socially constructed 'reality'. Truth cannot simply be considered truth if one speaks and another hears because individual bias and fallibility challenge the idea that certainty or objectivity are easily grasped. For Anti-realists, the inaccessibility of any final, objective truth means that there is no truth beyond the socially-accepted consensus. (Although this means there are truths, not truth).
Fact:
A fact or factual entity is a phenomenon that is perceived as an elemental principle. It is rarely one that could be subject to personal interpretation. Instead, it is most often an observed phenomenon of the natural world. The proposition 'viewed from most places on Earth, the sun rises in the east', is a fact. It is a fact for people belonging to any group or nationality, regardless of which language they speak or which part of the hemisphere they come from.
This is the foundation of debate, and in some cases even war. When one person perceives as reality differs from another the effects are not generally positive. This could be because one feels that the reality of another casts a negative effect on themselves and those that perceive reality the same way as themselves. A simpler possibility is one experiences straight agitation because others have not subscribed to the same belief utilizing information common to all. The effects from this can range from harmless to earth shattering.
An example is the “Holy Land”. Today’s generation has to rely on historical documentation to determine what their reality of what has happened in the past. So about 70 years ago the Zionist Manifest Destiny was initiated with validation from a story written by Hebrews a few thousand years ago. That is reality to them, just as is not a reality to the Palestinians. So what is the reality? A person’s reality will depend on what source they gather enough information to create what is a substantial reality to them.
The reason for this thread is I’m curious in what criteria people today use for their perception of “what is going on”. While this could be applied to subjects such as astrology, Bigfoot, loch ness monster, ghosts, and similar I want to focus on an area, that IMO sometimes borders being in the paranoia section- the government. This subject umbrellas out into several areas, but all point to a generalized theme- the government.
The National Geographic defines a conspiracy theorist as: someone who postulates on the existence of secret agreements between two or more people or government to perform unlawful acts. It is common practice for those disagreeing with CTs to begin referencing tin foil hats and similar.
Postulates has two meanings: A mathematical statement that is accepted without proof, and when used interchangeably with the term axiom- any starting assumption from which other statements are logically derived.
Here is where the split of perception happens. An example is JFKs assassination. From the research I’ve done I don’t see how anyone could dispute a cover-up. Even with evidence such as this:
people will still maintain the Warren Commission was telling the truth. Fast forward to today. I see the same practice happening. Ultimately I’m wondering do the people that point out tin hat candidates believe everything the government tells them? Do they have the belief that there is no reason for the government to act in any way other than what it states (both parties)? Do they have the belief that since we have a relatively higher freedom than other countries we shouldn’t “rock the boat”?
What criteria do people that believe what they are told use to arrive at their perceptions? The news, historical documentation?
Using the above image as the epitome: I see the photo the grassy knoll behind JFK when he was shot, is of a man holding a rifle with a muzzle blast. The other side will call it a blemish that doesn’t prove anything.
I see Bushes behaviors such as getting caught in a straightforward lie about 911, refusing to testify under oath, and a string of other behaviors to spell it out clearly. His supporters will defend these actions as someone who was under stress.
Perhaps if I can learn the ways people arrive at the perceptions; understanding why will be possible.