Opinions

[Tsuyoiko]

I read some of the comments on the Skewed Views of Science video, which Emoni posted on the Creationism in science classes thread. I saw the following comment there:

=sayno2scammers]The freedom to have and express an opinion on theory whether or not you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject. People are free to give their opinions no matter how ill informed they are.

Do you agree with this guy? Is it OK to state an opinion on anything you know little or nothing about? Is it OK only for certain types of topic, but not appropriate for others? Or would you consider it wrong for someone to comment on any topic if they are not reasonably well-informed about it?

 

[Jericho Desu]

I think its true many people give their opinion on topics they are not well versed in, from the extremes of racists to someone who just skimmed through a small book on a particular subject, this is a pretty common thing. Obviously such uninformed opinions can be quite dangerous depending on the subject, however in my opinion for people to grow they can express that opinion as long as they learn something from people with better knowledge on the subject.

People do need to be more responsible when it comes to giving an opinion on 'hot' topics and thats something totally up to them, nobody can stop them from expressing that opinion as is there right to do. However if they don't fully understand what their talking about then all they're doing is damaging themselves and maybe others.

Hope I answered whatever need to be answered with that mess.

 

[Glenski]

Are we including American presidents or presidential candidates in this discussion?

People generally have the freedom to express their opinions, no matter how little support info they have or how stupid it makes them look. Reap what you sow.

 

[Half-n-Half]

Well, I don't think the alternative to that is realistic. How would you know if someone was uninformed on a certain topic? Wait for them to speak? Even then, you would have defeated the purpose by letting them state their opinion. Then what? Flog them for their ill-informed comment?

Or do you give people tests throughout their life to see the areas they are most informed in? Then you monitor every conversation they have to stop them from giving their opinion. So even if you think somebody shouldn't "be allowed" to give an opinion if they are ill-informed, there is not much you can do about it besides inform them and others.

 

[Bellevance]

Of course, in all public discourse--in classrooms, meeting halls, and forums like this one--people are always free to state their opinions. If their purpose is simply that (to have a say), then their opinions will likely be dismissed or discounted by anyone who does not already hold the same opinions. Simple opinions aren't worth much.

If speakers or writers want others to take their opinions seriously, they are obliged also to present persuasively the reasons they have their opinions. That is, they must also explain why they think what they think. They must be willing to allow others to evaluate their opinions by examining their reasons for holding them. That's the fundamental reason for language--to transmit thought, not just opinion.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Half-n-Half, of course it's not practical to try to stop people having an opinion on something they know nothing about. As to how to tell whether someone is well-informed, I think it's usually fairly easy for those who are informed to spot those who aren't. But it must be hard for someone who's ill-informed to spot the difference, so I agree with Jericho Desu that it can be dangerous for those ignorant of a topic to express an opinion on it.

What about your personal behaviour? Do you often express opinions on topics you don't know much about? I try not to. I'm pretty ignorant of Current Affairs and Politics in general, so I steer clear of those topics for the most part. If I do comment in that area, I will check my facts first. Example: I'm staying out of the thread on the Gaza bombings for the most part, but what small contribution I have made, I checked my facts, e.g., on the number of non-Jews on Israel, before posting.

 

[Half-n-Half]

What about your personal behaviour? Do you often express opinions on topics you don't know much about? I try not to. I'm pretty ignorant of Current Affairs and Politics in general, so I steer clear of those topics for the most part. If I do comment in that area, I will check my facts first. Example: I'm staying out of the thread on the Gaza bombings for the most part, but what small contribution I have made, I checked my facts, e.g., on the number of non-Jews on Israel, before posting.

I think I'm pretty much the same as you; both in my knowledge of current affairs/politics and how I go about commenting things I'm not sure about.

 

[Emoni]

I read some of the comments on the Skewed Views of Science video, which Emoni posted on the Creationism in science classes thread. I saw the following comment there:
Do you agree with this guy? Is it OK to state an opinion on anything you know little or nothing about? Is it OK only for certain types of topic, but not appropriate for others? Or would you consider it wrong for someone to comment on any topic if they are not reasonably well-informed about it?

Yes, it is ok to state your opinion that you know little about. That level of knowledge is relative in the first place as well. Heck, you can say whatever you want about it. In regards to science, religion, politics and all sorts of areas, people make total fools of them expressing their opinions. Because, while you are free to make your opinion, it doesn't mean it is going to be WORTH anything. Now, if you back up your opinion with examples, quotes, and citable evidence and reasoning, then instantly that is going to make it more than "just some guy's opinion" and up the value.

 

[Grandpa Frank]

------lost in translation ???????????

I get the feeling some member's posts would make much more sense if they could be posted in their native language instead of a language they have not perfected. They know what they want to say, but when they put their post in a language foreign to them, ideas get messed up.
Another pet peeve I have is a member attempting to change another member's mind to the point of personal attacks and anger/frustration. Don't worry about what the member you disagree with thinks; state your facts and arguments to convince me and other readers you are correct. Trying to make someone think like you do is like trying to force someone to love you, almost impossible.
Just a crazy old man's opinion.

Uncle Frank

☝

 

[Haruspex]

I think everyone is meant to be able to express his/her views however lacking in substance. It is a whole different matter that there is no obligation whatsoever to not point out erroneous rubbish.
People, I think, have the right to fail, and the right to let the whole world know about it.

 

[Anohito]

Unfortunately, too many people can get away with presenting an "opinion" that is deliberately dishonest and/or bigoted.

 

[Bellevance]

Unfortunately, too many people can get away with presenting an "opinion" that is deliberately dishonest and/or bigoted.

It's unfortunate, all right. But I don't know what you mean by "get away with." I don't think that people who assert dishonest opinions get away with much at all. If they find support for their lies and prejudices, it's only among those who already hold the same mistaken convictions. They don't sway thinking people.

Moreover, there's no solution, is there? Who is to say that no one should express her bigoted or dishonest opinions? Liars and bigots abound, and they may say what they please as long as they don't slander any specific person.

So? Let them make asses of themselves.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I would prefer that people express their opinions only when they are well-founded, and can be backed up with evidence or sound reasoning. However, many people don't take debate as seriously as I do, and see nothing wrong in expressing an opinion on something they haven't really thought about very much at all. And I guess most of the time it really is no big deal.

Likewise, I always try to be very careful about how I word my opinions because I'm all too aware that people can jump on one small detail that I hadn't realised was important, and use that as the whole basis of a counter-argument. Ooops, I said most, when what I really meant was many

However, something that's at least as important to me as honesty and accuracy of this kind, is human kindness. For that reason, whenever I see an opinion stated that doesn't seem to be well thought out, consideration of the poster's feelings is at least as important to me as "putting them right". Words really can hurt people, and I can't see the sense in upsetting someone unnecessarily. Why call someone's opinions "silly", for example, when it's much more informative, to say "I don't agree with you because..."?

 

[Bellevance]

Why call someone's opinions "silly", for example, when it's much more informative, to say "I don't agree with you because..."?

As you say, Tsuyoiko, in open discussions like this one, in classrooms, in the editorial pages of newspapers, in town meetings, and so forth, all kinds of people have the opportunity to express opinions on matters that they feel strongly about, regardless of how well or how poorly they may understand those matters. In the eyes of others, their opinions may be mistaken for many reasons. In reasoned discourse, it's necessary for those with opinions to be able to support and explain them, and it's proper for those who disagree to say why they believe another's support for his opinions is ineffective or wrong-headed.

Now, in attempting to support their opinions, people may sometimes make assertions or statements of assumption that are factually wrong. Or even silly. When that happens in any open discussion, it's fair and proper for others to point out where and why someone else is misinformed, or where she is offering as support for her opinion a statement of assumed fact that is silly. That's not the same as calling someone's opinion silly.

I agree with you that most of the time it's "no big deal" when people express "an opinion on something they haven't really thought about very much at all." That kind of thing is to be expected. In any wide-ranging public discussion forum, indeed, a significant number of the participants' opinions are worth about you pay for them. For that reason they can and should be ignored.

That doesn't guarantee, however, that everyone will treat everyone else with kindness, nor is it even reasonable to expect a consistently high level of civility in these discussions. Public discourse can be sharp and emphatic and combative, and occasional wounding comments are to be expected and endured. What normally is not tolerated is outright abuse, punishing vitriol, and unwarranted ad hominem attacks. Short of such corruptions, any broad exchange of heartfelt opinion can have abundant value, even when it's harsh.

 

[Mycernius]

If you find someones opinions silly, daft or plain out there, attack the opinion and correct them. Calling such things as silly, daft, etc. will just get the other persons back up and they will become more entrenched in their opinion. Presenting evidence to back your view is much better than something that eventually becomes a flame war. Remember they might find your opinion just as daft.

As for calling members silly, daft, etc. that is against forum rules and warning and infractions are given put to those who break them. On a few occasion we have had members whose opinionsa are somewhat left field and they have defended them agressively where they eventually flip and go on a insult rampage. Needless to say those members soon depart.

The way to go is to act as if the person is with you rather than on the other end of a contection in a different country. Would you insult someones opinions if they where next to you? It is as if the relative safety of a forum gives some people a right to act differently to how they would do in real life.

 

[Bellevance]

The way to go is to act as if the person is with you rather than on the other end of a contection in a different country. Would you insult someones opinions if they where next to you? It is as if the relative safety of a forum gives some people a right to act differently to how they would do in real life.

This is the way to go, I agree. (Though surely any sincere exchange of ideas in an online forum is no less a real-life event than a similar exchange in a coffee bar or a classroom. Life has many venues.) At the same time, what we choose to say about another person's opinion depends a great deal on the content and merit of that opinion and on the apparent purposes of the opinion-giver in offering it. For me at least, it doesn't matter whether the person is in the same room with me or thousands of miles away; I will react as honestly and straightforwardly and articulately as I can manage in the moment.

Many people hold hateful, unjust opinions, as we all know. (I am not referring to anyone on this forum, I hasten to add.) Hateful opinions propounded by pugnacious people whose first intention is to provoke others don't deserve kindly consideration or respect. Whether we encounter them in person or online, those opinions deserve either to be ignored or, depending on the circumstances, emphatically contradicted.

 

[ShadowSpirit]

I'd like to contribute a new gem of wisdom to this topic. Yet I feel anything I could say is already outmatched by what Pachipro posted in the thread titled "Wise Sayings" with...

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Voltaire

This sums up the category of people being discussed, quite nicely. Regardless, such people are still entitled to their opinions and to openly express them.

 

[Anohito]

It's unfortunate, all right. But I don't know what you mean by "get away with." I don't think that people who assert dishonest opinions get away with much at all. If they find support for their lies and prejudices, it's only among those who already hold the same mistaken convictions. They don't sway thinking people.

Moreover, there's no solution, is there? Who is to say that no one should express her bigoted or dishonest opinions? Liars and bigots abound, and they may say what they please as long as they don't slander any specific person.

So? Let them make asses of themselves.

By "get away with" I mainly mean that their dishonesty and/or bigotry is too often not challenged. Too many people have been intimidated by "freedom of speech" zealots and are unwilling to come right out and say "this is wrong" when something clearly is wrong. I actually had somebody say, indignantly and superciliously, to me once, "I don't find it useful to call people liars and bigots." Well, liars and bigots most certainly do exist and are very common. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who has a decent respect for the difference between right & wrong is obliged to identify liars as liars and bigots as bigots. Furthermore, there is a definite double standard in this area. Those of a particular ideological persuasion are routinely allowed to falsely call people liars and bigots, while their intended victims are expected to "play nice."

As a practical matter, no right of action based on belief can be absolute. Therefore, arguments that you can't or shouldn't do anything about dishonesty and bigotry are basically a means of avoiding dealing with dishonesty and bigotry. Even in the intellectually corrupt society of the USA, laws against slander & libel are still on the books and might actually be enforced in the case of particularly egregious examples of slander or libel. Liars and bigots most certainly do not have an absolute right to say what they please. For example, media outlets are by no means obliged to provide such people with a forum, although few media outlets have the moral courage to deny such people a forum except in the very worst cases.

I suppose one could argue that the whole situation is just a result of basic human nature, but that doesn't make the situation right. Moral relativists and those with a vested interest in the promotion of ideology and/or theology at the expense of objective reality will probably object, however.

 

[Bellevance]

By "get away with" I mainly mean that their dishonesty and/or bigotry is too often not challenged. Too many people have been intimidated by "freedom of speech" zealots and are unwilling to come right out and say "this is wrong" when something clearly is wrong. I actually had somebody say, indignantly and superciliously, to me once, "I don't find it useful to call people liars and bigots." Well, liars and bigots most certainly do exist and are very common. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who has a decent respect for the difference between right & wrong is obliged to identify liars as liars and bigots as bigots. Furthermore, there is a definite double standard in this area. Those of a particular ideological persuasion are routinely allowed to falsely call people liars and bigots, while their intended victims are expected to "play nice."

As a practical matter, no right of action based on belief can be absolute. Therefore, arguments that you can't or shouldn't do anything about dishonesty and bigotry are basically a means of avoiding dealing with dishonesty and bigotry. Even in the intellectually corrupt society of the USA, laws against slander & libel are still on the books and might actually be enforced in the case of particularly egregious examples of slander or libel. Liars and bigots most certainly do not have an absolute right to say what they please. For example, media outlets are by no means obliged to provide such people with a forum, although few media outlets have the moral courage to deny such people a forum except in the very worst cases.

I suppose one could argue that the whole situation is just a result of basic human nature, but that doesn't make the situation right. Moral relativists and those with a vested interest in the promotion of ideology and/or theology at the expense of objective reality will probably object, however.

Very well said indeed. Thank you for enlarging so persuasively on this point. I agree completely.

 

[Kinsao]

I think people should express their opinions even when they are ill-informed; how else do people learn? If you think someone is wrong then by all means offer a counter-argument, evidence etc.

I'm happy to offer my uninformed opinions as long as I clarify that I haven't read up on the relevant information or whatever it is - i.e. that it really is just *my opinion* and not, like, hard fact or summat.

However if it's a technical argument like something in politics or economics if I need to know something I'll find it out first, rather than making claims, if it's a question of facts you can't have an 'opinion' because it is either right or wrong so you need to find out the facts first. But if you're posting your feelings on something that's different...

 

[ShadowSpirit]

I think people should express their opinions even when they are ill-informed; how else do people learn? If you think someone is wrong then by all means offer a counter-argument, evidence etc.
I'm happy to offer my uninformed opinions as long as I clarify that I haven't read up on the relevant information or whatever it is - i.e. that it really is just *my opinion* and not, like, hard fact or summat.
However if it's a technical argument like something in politics or economics if I need to know something I'll find it out first, rather than making claims, if it's a question of facts you can't have an 'opinion' because it is either right or wrong so you need to find out the facts first. But if you're posting your feelings on something that's different...

I agree to this. I try carefully to let it be known of the sources I'm using if the material listed is not of my own opinion.

If everybody was as responsible of a chatter as you are. Then there wouldn't be a need for this thread.

 

[newtoo]

Yes, I do Ms., because of the chance that I may have to say something ill informed.

Thankyou, peace, Delrae Lynn Adams