If you're still using an epistemology (rationalist or otherwise) where if two statements or perspectives contradict each other then one must be false, then today's your lucky day to learn about resolving paradoxes using higher-dimensional thinking! https://twitter.com/Malcolm_Ocean/status/1131779888179032064

Your two eyes have different perspectives and thus contradict each other constantly about what's closer and what's on what side of what...

...and—usually—rather than wasting energy on an argument over which 2D view is right, the brain integrates them into DEPTH PERCEPTION

Similarly, when two people each have a different perspective on something, they can waste energy arguing over which limited 1-person perspective is right, OR they can seek to integrate their perspectives into something deeper & richer.

This isn't just "oh, you have this part, I have that part, discard the falsehoods & keep the true parts".

If I think this object looks like a square and you think it looks like a circle, then neither of us is mistaken about what we're seeing. We're just missing the larger whole.

That example (the image at least) comes from this great article by Daniel Schmactenberger. https://civilizationemerging.com/higher-dimensional-thinking-the-end-of-paradox-and-a-more-adequate-understanding-of-reality/

A longer and more evocative depiction of the same thing is in @Nsousanis's book Unflattening. I've shared the main 2 relevant pages below, though they're richer in the context of the whole book. https://twitter.com/Malcolm_Ocean/status/1201904762419056642

I'm not thoroughly certain of this, but it seems possible to me that just like a single eye can't see in 3D, there may be thoughts that are too complex for a single person to hold at once, so it's not just about answering some question then distributing the answer to each person.

@Morphenius this thread collects most of what I've tweeted about parallax