Wednesday, August 14, 2013

the right to your opinion

It's such a simple way to end an argument: "Well, I'm entitled to my opinion."

Not according to logic. As author Jamie Whyte points out, one person's entitlement creates another's obligation. Think about it: if you are entitled to cross the street safely, I am obligated to not run you over in my car. But what if you're wrong in your thinking? What if we're in London, about to cross the street, and you look the wrong way and think the coast is clear? Am I obligated to watch you step off the curb and get crushed? This will be the focus of our first Socratic seminar this Friday (8/16). Make sure to gather and evaluate solid evidence; your opinion isn't nearly as important as (the way) you think.


The Right to Your Opinion -

10 comments:

  1. is there a way to print this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arrghh! I cant read this -.- but maybe ill squint my eyes and pursue decipher all tjese clumped up lines!

      Delete
    2. Have you tried clicking the full screen button in the upper right corner?

      Delete
  2. has anyone figured out how to print it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Go on google and type the full Title in even what's in parenthesis and click on the one that says Crimes Against Logic The right to your own opinion.doc . It should be about the fifth one down on Google search. Hope that helps.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have the doc, if you want it, you can send me a msg and I'll email it to you

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ahh this seemed familiar.. We read it last year (: Unless its a different one........lol

    ReplyDelete
  6. In truth, everyone IS entitled to the right to FORM his or her own opinion. This is "true" due to the fact that, even without any personal biases and/or intransigent defense mechanisms, each unique perspective will extract different meaning from the same collective evidence (excluding 100% proven facts, of course). Because of this, in any case of opposing viewpoints in which UNDENIABLE PROOF is absent in BOTH sides, the absolute truth of the matter cannot be determined and, therefore, any conclusions drawn from whatever evidence is present can only be considered "opinions". Well, what if I just don't draw any conclusions at all until some legitimate proof arises (given that proof is applicable to the argument, and that it is found)? No one can simply tell them self "I don't know" while contemplating a question that has yet to be answered and completely refuse to lean towards a certain hypothesis that makes sense to them after research, experimentation, and analysis. If our minds worked that way, we would never have attained any of the amazing success that we enjoy as a species. There is a point at which we are unable rely on what we KNOW (or don't, in this case), and are instead forced to decide what we BELIEVE until more evidence comes to light (again, if it is applicable and if it is ever found). Whether or not everyone has the right to INVOKE "the right to his or her opinion" in a debate, however, is a completely different story. Regarding this matter, I completely agree with the article. That type of "response" (I hate to even call it that) is nothing more than a coping mechanism used to preserve possibly false views. This is a detriment/inhibition to our advancement as a species without a doubt. I'm hoping that at least some one reads this post and finds it interesting, because typing all of this on an Ipod touch keyboard was brutal to say the least (and completely unnecessary since I had to email this to myself and post from the computer anyways because blogspot wouldn’t let me post from mobil).

    ReplyDelete