<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>schoen</author><text>This describes a bunch of recent psychological research that chose to use this terminology, but I don&amp;#x27;t think this psychological use corresponds exactly to the traditional (older) philosophical use of the term.&lt;p&gt;In my understanding, the classic philosophical use of &amp;quot;naïve realism&amp;quot; refers to the position that there is an objective reality that we can usefully perceive and understand with our senses and reason. It doesn&amp;#x27;t assert that each person always perceives objective reality correctly on the first attempt or that nobody ever makes a mistake. It might accept many cases in which people make mistakes of perception and&amp;#x2F;or reasoning, but in most forms of naïve realism we would probably expect that those mistakes could potentially be detected and corrected somehow, whether or not particular people have the willingness, inclination, incentives, or resources to actually complete that process.&lt;p&gt;As a few other people said, one might also expect disagreements to be tractable in principle but not to assume that one&amp;#x27;s own view is sure to prevail in every disagreement.&lt;p&gt;Of course, I could be wrong. :-)</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Are you a naïve realist?</title><url>https://nautil.us/are-you-a-naive-realist-20403/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>blfr</author><text>&amp;gt; Despite evidence to the contrary, nearly one-third of Americans still believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen.&lt;p&gt;Speaking of naive realism, what evidence? I&amp;#x27;m not even asking what evidence was provided, but what could be provided at all.&lt;p&gt;You can&amp;#x27;t really prove that elections were fair, especially post factum. Best case, you can show that protections against known frauds were there. And compared to elections I took part in, American elections often look woefully inadequate in that regard.&lt;p&gt;In fact, at least one American president, Lyndon B. Johnson, remains under serious suspicion.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Box_13_scandal&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Box_13_scandal&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Are you a naïve realist?</title><url>https://nautil.us/are-you-a-naive-realist-20403/</url></story>