Final answer:
The question involves understanding the nature of knowledge in philosophy, exemplified by stories of individuals believing they know the correct time by looking at clocks, which may or may not be operating correctly. Bertrand Russell's philosophical example demonstrates that true belief without justification does not constitute knowledge, and a modern story humorously explores the concept of time and excuses.
Step-by-step explanation:
The scenario involving a friend who is impatient and pointing to his watch while telling a story seems to relate to a philosophical concept regarding the nature of knowledge. Bertrand Russell discusses a similar situation where a man looks at a stopped clock at precisely the moment when it shows the correct time.
Although the man believes the time is correct, Russell points out that it is only by chance that the belief is true, and therefore the man cannot be said to have knowledge of the correct time.
In the humorous Valentine's Day story, the friend claims that time runs faster at the top of a building; however, according to physics, time actually runs slower as gravitational potential increases—though the effect is minuscule and would not account for a 5-minute discrepancy. This would make the friend's excuse unreasonable.
The stories highlighted illustrate the distinction between true belief and knowledge and the reliability (or lack thereof) of clocks and timepieces, tying into the well-known phrase, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day."