I recently saw a lawyer address these two words with separate and distinct descriptions. First he was addressing how Perspective is a technical based response to what one is seeing. It’s based on where you are while you are viewing a certain person, place or thing. I immediately thought that the value in calling out the difference for each of these disciplines, perception or perspective can be changed by the elements of each specific example. In this case, eyewitness accounts had clear views. But they may not have had the whole story. What happened before they arrived on the scene, or if everyone at the scene had the same perception of what was occurring.
Example: The scene begins with a view of a courtroom. Because of the pandemic, the room was setup with social distancing in mind. Additionally, there are cameras in the room and the position of those seem to be strategic. Prosecution and Defense are unable to see the Jury in some cases. They are unable to see the defendants and witnesses being paraded up and down on the stand. It seems the complicated setup in the room limited ones view based on where they were located in the room, and thus the idea of perspective. Perspective had obvious objects placed within the courtroom that resulted in the inability to see something clearly. The perception was ultimately the fall back for forming opinions. Which means that previous history in their minds would have to help them realize that the person on the stand providing an eyewitness account was sincere and credible. In one’s opinion they perceived that the Doctors, with impressive credentials, were credible. They could also assume that other specialists were brought to the stand because of their expertise.
What they couldn’t see from their perspective became dependent on perception. Perception relies on formulations from our past memories it becomes how one person, with all their specific history, whether humble or full of struggles, completes a final result of an opinion. Which means that in any given scenario, Perspective or Perception, operates on incomplete information. The lawyer wanted the people listening to the discourse on the weakness or strength for one over the other as truth, ultimately the truth fell on the ability persuade with words.
In general, I thought that the argument was weak, even I could see that it was just a play on words. There was no real value in trying to compare the two since neither one would result in a juror being able to decide without a doubt… that based on perspective or perception truth could clearly be established. The juror was left with the responsibility of committing to a decision that the burden of proof, based on all evidence and in spite of all arguments of perspective or perception, were still the truth. In conclusion, I think something clearly right or clearly wrong can’t be reduced to Perspective or Perception.
