My family's version of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

This scenario describes a situation where one person refuses to accept or acknowledge clear evidence or consensus about a straightforward observation—in this case, the color of a table—despite social agreement and scientific explanation.

There are several ways to characterize this behavior, depending on context and intention:

1. Denial (If someone could point out that they are unwilling to accept what are clear facts to everyone else, that would help them see the flaw in their reasoning, because I can use logic and reason all day long and nothing, and I mean nothing will get them to see how flawed their logic is)

The second person might be exhibiting denial—refusing to accept reality or facts that are clear to others.

2. Cognitive Dissonance  (This is the fallacy that my family is holding on to a belief that is contradictory to what actually happened on many occasions due to only hearing one side or believing one side and tuning out the other)

If the person genuinely perceives the table as black, they could be experiencing cognitive dissonance, a psychological discomfort from holding contradictory beliefs or perceptions.

3. Stubbornness or Intransigence

If they are simply refusing to change or even consider changing their point of view despite overwhelming evidence, terms like stubbornness, intransigence, or obstinacy apply.

4. Contrarianism

Deliberately disagreeing with the majority, sometimes for attention or out of habit, is described as contrarianism.

5. Delusion (My mother's conspiracy theory beliefs)

If their assertion persists despite all logical, social, and empirical evidence, and it's not simply a difference in opinion or point of view, it could even be called a delusion (a fixed false belief), especially in a psychological or clinical context.

6. Subjective Experience

Alternatively, if we consider differences in perception, it might also be a demonstration of the subjectivity of perception—perhaps the second person sincerely perceives the table as black due to differences in vision (like color blindness), lighting, or even psychological factors.

In summary:
What you would call this situation depends on the person's intent and reasoning:

• If willful: Stubbornness, denial, or contrarianism.

• If perceptual: Subjective experience or color vision deficiency.

• If persistent and irrational: Delusion.

Let me know if you want this explained with an example or related to any specific context (like logical fallacies or psychological terms)!

If they could logically explain any of their reason's for their actions or beliefs, I'm persuadable but if it's just an opinion without any evidence, those I take with a grain of salt.  If you can't prove why or explain why you do or say the things you do then I have no use for biased opinions from the past, that are flawed to begin with due to only one side's story ever being taken into consideration.  It's like if a big pharmaceutical company did clinical trials and only showed you one side the positive trials, and never told you of the equal amount of negative trials for a new drug, would you say you had a full perspective or all the information to make a rational decision if that were the case?