John writes: “Opinions are not a tool of agreement or a way to discover common ground. They are a mark of authoritarian rule and a closed mind.”
Facts would be tools of agreement. At present, people seem to have opinions about the truth of facts. “Opinions”, John adds, “forcibly expressed, are combat.” It is widely stated that the 2020 election was stolen. There is no evidence for that and so it is clearly not a fact. Is it even an opinion? What is an opinion? Something one says or thinks based on feelings? “I want Donald Trump to have won the election, therefore it must have been stolen from him?”
The difficulty in discovering common ground, it seems to me, is getting people to set aside feelings and look at facts.
Agree, John, but for many "facts" have become little more than emphatic opinions. I think even facts need to be "sheltered" by a language of qualification. Again, I think that agreement --tentative and fragile sometimes -- comes when we agree on the space allowed us by the qualification. Tentative acceptance. The problem with "facts" (yours and mine) is that there is room for varying degrees of certainty. I.e. not enough or the right variables in the model.
Humans have developed the important skill of connecting dots. Without this ability, I doubt our species could have survived. Apophenia is when this "ability" goes bonkers. Gamblers and investors find false patterns, we draw conclusions that don't exist, we see conspiracy theories, and so on. I think knowledge of facts and thinking/debating skills can help us to better fill in those gaps and make better informed opinions. And when the facts change, we can change our minds. (oh, and beliefs aren't opinions)
See in part above where I responded to John Allen. Maybe it would be better to refer to "informed opinions" as "reasonable suggestions." However we choose to label it, it is the degree of authoritative pronouncement that pulls us apart.
Opinions do matter when they're based on facts. We can develop our opinion when based on facts but that often isn't what happens. It's too easy for anyone to turn on the boob tube and get marching orders for what our opinions are supposed to be. We don't need no stinkin' facts, just our favorite pundits.
My co-worker (I can't call him a white christian nationalist because that might hurt his feelings) says there are things I can't say ... I think it's because I'm in the wrong tribe. So, once I said that Navarro was wrong about GDP and effects found by changes in imports as it relates to GDP formula. "You think you know more than anyone else!" No, actually, I know something about math and economics.
I think topics aren't personal, but I'm told my opinions are only personal (a tribal thing). One day, I was fed up with the nonsense and said I was exhausted by people who never read a book about economics telling me that "I can't say that." Well, guess what, yes I can. I can look at facts and draw conclusions. My conclusion is an opinion but I'm ok that it's up for discussion if you know something about what's being discussed. But if you think your religion and favorite tv show tell you that the minimum wage is unjust, tells you not to love the stranger as ourselves, and that we are not our brother's keeper, and any other batshit crazy thing, then your opinion is no more than an opinion based on ignorance.
John writes: “Opinions are not a tool of agreement or a way to discover common ground. They are a mark of authoritarian rule and a closed mind.”
Facts would be tools of agreement. At present, people seem to have opinions about the truth of facts. “Opinions”, John adds, “forcibly expressed, are combat.” It is widely stated that the 2020 election was stolen. There is no evidence for that and so it is clearly not a fact. Is it even an opinion? What is an opinion? Something one says or thinks based on feelings? “I want Donald Trump to have won the election, therefore it must have been stolen from him?”
The difficulty in discovering common ground, it seems to me, is getting people to set aside feelings and look at facts.
Agree, John, but for many "facts" have become little more than emphatic opinions. I think even facts need to be "sheltered" by a language of qualification. Again, I think that agreement --tentative and fragile sometimes -- comes when we agree on the space allowed us by the qualification. Tentative acceptance. The problem with "facts" (yours and mine) is that there is room for varying degrees of certainty. I.e. not enough or the right variables in the model.
Humans have developed the important skill of connecting dots. Without this ability, I doubt our species could have survived. Apophenia is when this "ability" goes bonkers. Gamblers and investors find false patterns, we draw conclusions that don't exist, we see conspiracy theories, and so on. I think knowledge of facts and thinking/debating skills can help us to better fill in those gaps and make better informed opinions. And when the facts change, we can change our minds. (oh, and beliefs aren't opinions)
See in part above where I responded to John Allen. Maybe it would be better to refer to "informed opinions" as "reasonable suggestions." However we choose to label it, it is the degree of authoritative pronouncement that pulls us apart.
I like to call it having an opinion when we know a little something, and
I call it having knowledge when we know a lot.
Opinions do matter when they're based on facts. We can develop our opinion when based on facts but that often isn't what happens. It's too easy for anyone to turn on the boob tube and get marching orders for what our opinions are supposed to be. We don't need no stinkin' facts, just our favorite pundits.
My co-worker (I can't call him a white christian nationalist because that might hurt his feelings) says there are things I can't say ... I think it's because I'm in the wrong tribe. So, once I said that Navarro was wrong about GDP and effects found by changes in imports as it relates to GDP formula. "You think you know more than anyone else!" No, actually, I know something about math and economics.
I think topics aren't personal, but I'm told my opinions are only personal (a tribal thing). One day, I was fed up with the nonsense and said I was exhausted by people who never read a book about economics telling me that "I can't say that." Well, guess what, yes I can. I can look at facts and draw conclusions. My conclusion is an opinion but I'm ok that it's up for discussion if you know something about what's being discussed. But if you think your religion and favorite tv show tell you that the minimum wage is unjust, tells you not to love the stranger as ourselves, and that we are not our brother's keeper, and any other batshit crazy thing, then your opinion is no more than an opinion based on ignorance.
Or just another "naked" statement?