The article says: "First, the naïve realist believes that their perceptions are realistic and “objective.” ... Second, the naïve realist expects that any reasonable, open-minded person will be persuaded to agree with the naïve realist if there is disagreement between parties. ... Third, anyone who disagrees with the naïve realist after the presentation of real facts is unreasonable, biased, or irrational."
Of course. How could anyone think otherwise? The only thing missing here is that after both sides present the "real facts", as they see them, it could be either of the parties who change their view as a result of learning new facts.
Assuming such an exchange of facts (and arguments) has taken place, whatever you now think is the correct view (which might be "we can't know, given available information") must be what you think is correct (duh...). If the other person has a different view, then you must think it is incorrect. This isn't "naive realism" (which is a term with a totally different meaning in philosophy, by the way), but simply the definition of a thinking entity with coherent beliefs.
1. I don't think all of my perceptions are realistic and objective. Some things are biased that I don't know, some things are biased and I do know, and somethings my perceptions aren't good enough to get a realistic sense of it.
2. Because of 1 I don't expect any reasonable open-minded person would agree with me. Plus there are some things I think about that most people don't think about. Or I think about them in a way that other people don't think about. Maybe because it's purely theoretical and not useful and I don't expect they'd see it my way.
I also share your impression that we cannot hope to be anything other than "naive realists" as described in the article: Why would we intentionally doubt the veracity of what we've reached the conclusion is true? ... but then. if one thinks of the _process_ of discovering truth, or developing positions and views, then one may well think in terms of "That's what I can deduce based on my experience so far", and be aware that one's own views change - either through refinement or sometimes by a discard and adoption of a different position.
Another point is realizing how aspects of your background - sometimes even just your momentary mood - color your perception of reality, the significance and weight you assign to different pieces of it, to compose the whole.
Of course. How could anyone think otherwise? The only thing missing here is that after both sides present the "real facts", as they see them, it could be either of the parties who change their view as a result of learning new facts.
Assuming such an exchange of facts (and arguments) has taken place, whatever you now think is the correct view (which might be "we can't know, given available information") must be what you think is correct (duh...). If the other person has a different view, then you must think it is incorrect. This isn't "naive realism" (which is a term with a totally different meaning in philosophy, by the way), but simply the definition of a thinking entity with coherent beliefs.