Opinions, Truth, and Validity

[Flatlander]

Not all opinions are equal. Some are better then others and politics should be about judging which opinions ARE better. The ascendency of the Republican party can basically be attributed to their control of the message. People like Karl Rove sleep with Machiavelli under their pillows. They are political geniuses. Their spin is so good, the details don't matter.

I have trouble with this statement. I think that perhaps it's fair to say that all opinions may not carry equal value when judged from a particular reference frame. I don't think that it's in any way fair to disqualify the 'global' value of anyone's opinion. But that's just my opinion.

Aside from which, everyone has the right to express their opinion in public, provided that it doesn't infringe on other's rights. Thus, protests occur, and the one's protesting try to get everyone else to pay attention. Everyone else has the right to choose to listen, or not.

Yet to say the John O'Neil's opinion of John Kerry's military service should carry equal weight as John McCain's opinion is also foolish. Because while both John's have the right to an opinion, one of the opinions is backed up by a third party's documentary evidence.

The frame of reference (liberal / conservative) really should become secondary to the third party evidence; especially when the evidence is provided from as reputable source as the United States Navy.

I present this as a demonstration of weighting opinions, rather than to re-hash, the SBVT issue.

Mike

This speaks more to the validity of justification supporting the opinion. The problem is, we may never get the opportunity to completely examine all of the justifications that went into the forming of one's opinion before assigning our own bias to it. Their justifications provide validity to their opinion from their perspective. My opinion of the value of their opinion will be determined by the justifications that I have available to me.

When we compare the extremes, the difference becomes clear. Take for instance, Nazi ideologic statements and compare it to the things said my Nelson Mandala and the ANC. Like I said, there is a clear choice. When we move toward the middle, the choice gets fuzzy and depends on the details. Is it wrong to state that one of those opinions wouldn't have a better approach?

Is the value of the opinion not wholly assigned by the one who hears it? In your Nazi analogy, I would suggest that their ideologic statements would be very well received by other Nazis. People like to hear things that agree with their own viewpoint, that's all.

 

[Makalakumu]

Personally, my opinions are alive and constantly changing. I may believe something one day and change the next based on new information. I try to be open and talk about anything. There has never been a span of years in my life where I haven't changed my mind. The point is that my opinions are based on the information that I have at that time. I am not afraid to change.

 

[Makalakumu]

Is the value of the opinion not wholly assigned by the one who hears it? In your Nazi analogy, I would suggest that their ideologic statements would be very well received by other Nazis. People like to hear things that agree with their own viewpoint, that's all.

I don't. I value the opinion of those who disagree with me more then those who agree. Those are the people that can teach me more about my beliefs then anyone I know...Or perhaps I should say, help me understand my principles.

 

[Flatlander]

How do you reconcile these two statements?

Not all opinions are equal. Some are better then others

I value the opinion of those who disagree with me more then those who agree.

Besides which, if

my opinions are based on the information that I have at that time

and

my opinions are alive and constantly changing

then how can some be better than others? If they constantly change, then how how can you assign value to it, knowing that it is impermanent? The value (of "better than others") carries no meaning if it is subject to change, no?

 

[shesulsa]

Opinions are generally formed by emotional responses to information, that information being factual, twisted or incomplete. Analyzing as many sides of an opinion as possible or as many opinions to a certain topical reference as possible can aide in the most important and, unfortunately rarely taken, step in opinionization, that of consideration. Dissecting emotions and purposes to opinions and their factual base (or lack thereof) CAN lend to an informed, well-considered opinion that may be opposed to one's personal feeling.

Those who are willing to open their minds to such a process rather than cage them in the politicalization of opinion stand the chance of being great leaders, though too often, they are voted down.

This is what I think politics SHOULD be about - analyzing opinion with the virtues of compassion and non-judgement. The "us v. them" thing is tired, old, and what we left England for.

 

[Makalakumu]

How do you reconcile these two statements?

It is all based on the information I possess at the time. I realize that even attempting to dissemble can be arrogent, but we need to decide somehow?

Besides which, if and then how can some be better than others? If they constantly change, then how how can you assign value to it, knowing that it is impermanent? The value (of "better than others") carries no meaning if it is subject to change, no?

Above everything else, I would consider myself to be a scientist. What I talked about above is, in essence, the scientific method. A good opinion is just a theory and any theory is supposed to be thrown out when information comes along to overthrow it.

I assign value to my theories by the information I associate with them. I expect people to be critical and I appreciate finding out that I'm wrong. Imagine the conceit that it takes for someone to grab an opinion, throw it in the closet, and ignore all criticism.

I think that kind of thing is very disrespectful.

I hope this clarifies a bit...

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

This is something I said on a different thread and I think that applies here.

The 2004 election and the rhetoric I have heard thus far is so different then anything that I have ever heard or read. I am absolutely astounded when I look at the two worlds being presented by BOTH parties. They are so different that its hard to get a grasp on reality.

In my opinion, spin is directly responsible for this perterbation. Reality is reality. Logically, we shouldn't be so far away from each other.

Does anyone agree with that statement? Why/Why not?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Imagine the conceit that it takes for someone to grab an opinion, throw it in the closet, and ignore all criticism.

I think that kind of thing is very disrespectful.

For some its a conceit, for others its a self defense mechanism. Certain personality types can not handle opposing arguments or data that contradicts that which they've invested emotional interest. It would rock their boat, and this is intolerable. While they can intellectually accept new and opposing concepts, they can not emotionally stomach them. It would uproot them from their world view and leave them ungrounded. This they find frightening.

Some, when exposed to a truth they've denied, find they can no longer ignore it. It eats away at their professed idealism and they get very depressed. This is the transition from dualism (black/white thinking) to a more realistic worldview. It isn't easy.

People from all ranges of the political spectrum think arthritically like that described above. Typically these people are from the polar extremes. Many moderates are people who have moved to the center from the fringe--and they've often gone through that dark night of the soul where they realize their once cherished notions are not all they believed them to be.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Flatlander]

I assign value to my theories by the information I associate with them. I expect people to be critical and I appreciate finding out that I'm wrong. Imagine the conceit that it takes for someone to grab an opinion, throw it in the closet, and ignore all criticism.

I think that kind of thing is very disrespectful.

I hope this clarifies a bit...

upnorthkyosa

Somewhat.... I don't really know. I have to think about this some more.