This post is one of the reasons I so enjoy reading a deep, thoughtful post by Mrs. DuToit. Quite simply, she breaks it down chapter and verse where almost anyone can understand it...you know, Forrest Gump style. In this case, she calls out in devastating fashion the childish behavior of anyone of any political or ideological stripe who engages in name-calling, fact-absent arguing, or relying on someone who has no knowledge of the subject matter about which they speak as an "authority" (i.e. Holly-weirdos thinking they should be in charge of foreign policy because they saw a starving kid from Africa on a TV once). I don't mind debating someone who may have a different opinion than I do, especially if they have insight, facts, or experience that I may not. That said, the ultimate decision of what facts to put stock in, what decisions to make, and what goals to pursue on the basis of those things stays with me even after the debate is done. I respect other folks' right to disagree, to be wrong, and to believe in what they believe, and I expect the same in return. Where that respect ends, however, is generally right around the place the other person's hand reaches into my family's pocketbook to support ideas with which I do not agree, and it only increases when the motivation for that money grab is based on dubious fact (i.e. glow-bull warming). Anyhow, read the whole thing...it's good stuff.
"Informed Opinion"
"Kim recently had a post on opinions, appropriately titled, Opinions. That post focused on the difference between personal tastes/preferences and fact-based opinions.
I want to expand on that a bit, because it appears to me that there are some folks who didn’t have this explained to them.
There is nothing wrong with having tastes and preferences, in fact, it should be encouraged. Developing preferences falls into the category of having a discriminating palate, as opposed to an ignorant palate. Experience leads to preferences and away from ignorance. If you’ve tried 50 different types of cheese you will broaden your palate. You might decide you prefer harder cheeses, or goat cheese, and then expand your experience within that category, but it is all part of the process of broadening your horizons. You might discover you don’t like cheese at all, or certain types of cheese (and that’s fine, too). The end result will be a honing of your preferences so you’ll end up narrowing your selection of categories, and narrow further the categories within.
This is not unlike the academic model. The purpose of grammar school is to provide the student with generalist knowledge. In college, the breadth of knowledge does not increase. The depth of knowledge does. An undergraduate degree is still very much like grammar school, to provide general knowledge of a wide variety of subjects. High school and college provides a greater depth of general knowledge, with only a little specialization by selecting a “major.” Graduate degrees are all about specialization and focus. You study one thing, and study one particular aspect of that thing in more detail. The purpose of graduate degrees is specialization, not to gain a breadth of knowledge. You learn more and more about less and less.
That doesn’t mean that learning stops and should focus only on specialty. It simply means that your formal general education is over and you are now the captain of your general education ship. If someone chooses to focus only on their specialty, that’s fine. That is their choice, too.
What seems to have been lost in this general education road, that all of us were put on when we were children, is the concept of an informed opinion. On some issues (as I illustrated above with personal tastes and preferences) the basis of the opinion is in your own head, and no one should challenge you for citations and sources for opinions in that arena. There are no citations outside of your head and taste buds for taste/preference based opinions.
It is when we stray outside of personal taste and preferences that informed, fact-based decisions come into play. To be blunt, it is what differentiates adults from children. Children have very little real knowledge--of facts and details, and few life experiences that enable adults to form reasonable judgments more quickly. They know they like Chuckee Cheese and stuffed animals, but they don’t have knowledge (or research abilities) sufficient to come to sound conclusions much beyond that. That’s why children are not given the right to vote or the full rights and privileges of adults. They are too easily swayed by fast talkers and snake oil salesmen.
One of the ways I deal with this is that I am adamantly opposed to children making promises or commitments that extend into adulthood. I do not believe it is appropriate, for example, for children to say the pledge of allegiance. They have no idea what the words mean, or what they are pledging, and until they do, I do not believe they should recite empty words and make false promises. What I want my children to know is that their promises must be kept and their commitments more so. I can’t tell them that and expect them to believe me, when I simultaneously encourage them to commit to things they don’t fully understand. Similarly, the fact-based opinions of children are going to tend to be less stable, as more information will come available to them, their opinions will be changed as a result. At least we HOPE so, as that is the goal of education and experience.
Making an informed decision requires that we are informed on the topic. [Yeah, I know, DUH!]
Being informed however, doesn’t mean that someone else informs you and you take what they say at face value, without verifying it. You might have experience with that person to trust their judgment, in a certain area, but on issues of public policy (or on voting, for instance) you have to do some homework. The news media is not a reliable source of information. It may have been better at some point in the past, but even then it wasn’t 100% reliable. A celebrity might know a great deal about acting or movie making, but what experience or specialty knowledge do they possess with International Affairs, Climate, or our rights as articulated in the Constitution? Unless they can be shown to have some expertise and knowledge of those subjects, they are not reliable sources for anything out of their area of expertise. Quoting what a celebrity says, who is not a universally accepted expert in the subject under discussion, is referred to as “an appeal to authority.” The person must demonstrate they are qualified to speak on a subject before what they say has any value.
On something like car repairs, I can go to people I trust and have expertise. That MIGHT be my mechanic. It might not be.
An informed opinion must be based on verifiable facts. The key word here is verifiable. Facts can be true or false, so facts alone aren’t enough.
I’ll illustrate:
It is my opinion that there is no evidence of man-made global warming. There might be global warming, or global cooling, or climate change, but it is my opinion that there is no evidence to suggest that man has anything to do with it. Therefore, I believe it would be inappropriate to take any actions or make public policies that inhibit what man may do in this arena. That doesn’t mean that global warming may not be occurring. Further, it would be appropriate to have plans/policies in place to deal with it, if it should create problems, but this does not include limiting any actions that are preventative in nature (trying to stop the trend). That would be foolish, because what we do has no impact on it at all.
The above is an informed opinion that has a public policy component.
In the statement of opinion above I used the words no evidence. Now some nincompoop is going to come along as say, Yes there is!! Here is a study that says blah blah blah. And since you said there was no evidence and I have just proven that there is, your entire opinion is false. Therefore, we get to tell man to lower his carbon footprint as sound public policy.
Evidence is not always factual. The fact that someone can pull a study out of their butt does not mean that the study is accurate. We have not yet determined if the facts are true or false simply by pulling papers out of the cabinet or pasting a link in a comment post on a blog. When someone includes in their opinion a statement such as there is no evidence to suggest, what they are stating is that there is no reliable evidence to suggest... I am perfectly aware, for example, that there are studies which suggest that man is influencing climate change. I have different studies and other facts which contradict those studies. That means that I have made a judgment. I have made a judgment about the reliability of those facts and have concluded that they are false.
Someone else can make a different determination on the reliability of the facts they have seen. If we can’t come to consensus on the reliability of the facts, then we can’t come to consensus on the soundness of our opinions. That’s OK, but we need to be aware of that.
You don’t argue with someone over their opinion, per se. You argue over the reliability of their facts, providing additional facts that contradict, or other information which demonstrates that their facts are faulty or false, and your facts are less faulty or true.
THAT is argument. Argument is not suggesting that someone is an idiot because they have formed an opinion you do not share. Argument is determining which facts they used to come to that conclusion and debating their reliability or validity. On what basis have you formed the opinion that this person is an idiot? Evidence please. Without evidence the opinion could be slander (if spoken) or libel (if written). And Free Speech does not cover slander or libel, so prepare to be sued in civil court for damages. There are consequences for stating opinions not based on reliable evidence.
If someone says, “because I say so” or “I have no facts. I just believe it” then no argument is possible. If they continue to hold the same fact-based opinion, when their facts have been shown to be false, then they are just being stubborn (and stupid). If there are no facts or there is no way to verify the facts, then NO ARGUMENT IS POSSIBLE. To continue to discuss it at that point isn’t argument. It is fighting. And only children or the willfully ignorant fight over silly things like that."
