If there is a difference in cognitive ability, then there is a discrepancy in observed facts.

For a proposition X, Mr. A thinks "it is clear from observed facts" and Mr. B thinks "there is no such observed fact".

From Mr. A, Mr. B appears to be "a fool with inferior cognitive abilities.

From Mr. B, Mr. A appears to be "a madman who believes in something that does not exist.

No one knows which is right.

This is a hypothesis, we just haven't found a solution at the moment.

Sometimes B's side claims their righteousness by the sheer number of people, but this is not an argument.

Because there are instances where the majority was stupid.

This, too, will only deepen the conflict on A's side, as he will see it as "you are a fool with inferior historical awareness skills to use that as an argument.

No picture yet.

I mean, it's one level of meta.

Because a series where two people say different things is generally "two people observe the same thing and what they perceive is different".

Further Development

Doesn't B have an unfounded confidence in proposition Y that "I can recognize the basis for A's belief that proposition X is true"?

supplement

If it's something that can be verified by experimentation, then we can experiment and see which one is right.

For example, if the proposition is "this will happen in 50 years," you have to wait 50 years.

---