Values, opinions, and arguments
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 5:42PM If that definition is accurate, no one should have values, they should just have opinions.
by MissBlythe
Opinions can change, opinions can be revised, and values cannot. Values are never wrong. And for me, being able to admit that you are wrong is one of the fundamental qualities of an intelligent person.
You shouldn’t hold an opinion because you like that point of view, you should hold an opinion because the evidence points in that direction. And should that evidence change, your opinion should change with it.
Having an opinion that is not subject to revision upon the discovery of new evidence (aka 'values') means that that opinion is based on faith and dogma, not logic and reason. It’s the difference between finding evidence to fit your theory, and finding a theory to fit the evidence. It’s the difference between religion and science.
by Mike Babcock
Once you've formed an opinion you need to evaluate it using an arguement and that's where things get difficult again. Most people don't know how to argue and it ends up causing 90% of the conflict in this world and my life.
Having a meaningful argument with a useful resolution is dependent upon agreeing on some common evidence and common truths as a foundation for the argument. This is why arguments about religion don’t go anywhere, because you’re arguing from different foundations. One person is claiming that only that which can be measured is valid, and the other person believes in magic and unicorns. There is no common ground.
by calium
For a different, more subtle example, Person A says to me “Women make 25% less than men for the same work”. Then I’d say, “Well I read two studies that both showed that once you control for other factors (children, family life, differing priorities) there is only about 10-12% that can be attributed purely to sexism.” Then Person A says “Yes but the entire society and scientific system was created by men and therefore has a built in bias against women”. And the argument is wreaked.
That last bit basically destroys the ability to even continue the argument because it removes any common foundation. Person A has claimed that all of society, and therefore any evidence coming from that society, is suspect. So nothing I say, and nothing Person A says is useful anymore. It’s like the nuclear weapon of arguments, it just destroys everything, no one wins. And it’s pointless, Person A hasn’t accomplished anything other than to prove that they don’t know how to argue a point to a meanful resolution.
by teaeff
The funny thing is, most people don't realize that the foundation of the argument has been destroyed at that point and the argument is now unwinable. Most people (myself included) will frequently allow the argument to continue off into some deeper existential debate, or onto another subject entirely. They may not realize that whatever they started arguing about is off the rails and is not going to go anywhere at this point. Because if you can't agree on a common point of reference and stick to that then there is no argument, there is just yelling.
But they'll keep trying. They'll just keep yelling and the person who yells the loudest wins. That doesn’t mean they've resolved anything. It doesn't mean that they've tested the evidence for their opinions and found it strong. It just means they don't know how to argue and they're a better yeller.
by Simmy.
Reader Comments (3)
See - you use opinion like I would use conclusion. I disagree. I don't think people change their opinions based on facts. Maybe they change their conclusions. Conclusions is a direct result of analyzing the evidence and coming to a logical theory based on that. Opinions are just how people feel about certain topics, values, and ideas and aren't necessarily based on any evidence whatsoever.
Nice copy and pasting of your comment into a blog post. ;)
Can you just pick up a book on religion and science already, so you stop sounding like a 12 year old Dawkins?
In most circumstances religious people can use their brains (woah controversial I know), and evidence, and rationality. Though this can get muddier when issues with moral dimensions come into play, religious people often still tend to use their brains (I know, heresy). Where do you think the idea cafeteria catholic came from?
Religious people can change their beliefs/values too, not just their opinions. But it involves trusting your inner gut as well, not just what other people say. It involves having a little something extra besides rational thought (though the two aren't exclusionary). It involves being a MAC or a PC. And who wants to be a PC?
"And for me, being able to admit that you are wrong is one of the fundamental qualities of an intelligent person."
I can absolutely agree with this.