Are All Views "Equally Valid"?

[Mike03]

Perhaps the increased tension here at DU is getting to me, but something is beginning to irritate me.

A number of times in the context of recent, more contentious threads (or arguments on talk radio) I have seen people defend a faltering, poorly supported or just-plain ignorant point of view by saying that their view is equally valid to view of someone who has more knowledge of, or has more seriously considered, the issue in debate.

There is a presupposition that all opinions are equal. All opinions are opinions, but I cannot agree that they are equal.

I used to ignore this the way I ignore most homilies, but increasingly I take umbrage at seeing this defense employed when the issue at stake is NOT simply a matter of opinion (like whether a painting is good or bad) but a matter that can be established, validated and confirmed by facts or knowledge. My comments are not directed at any individuals, but just reflect my irritation with this line of argument.

This argumentative escape hatch is reminiscent of the intellectual egalitarianism that is so embarrassing to people who do take the trouble to think and reason seriously about the issues before arriving at an opinion. And it’s also a cliché.

A few random examples: Evolution vs. Creationism. Peak vs. abiotic oil. The U.S. economy is weak vs. the U.S. economy is strong. Global warming is a valid concern vs. Global warming is a conspiratorial sham in which the vast majority of the world’s most prestigious scientists are accomplices.

If someone argued to you that his/her view that Iraq attacked us on 9-11 was equal to your informed view that they did not, would you consider those views “equally valid” because they are shared with equal conviction or passion? Of course not. One view is correct, and the other is erroneous.

My point of view about geological formations or autopsy results is not going to be equivalent to the opinions of geologists or pathologists. I’m certainly free to have an opinion, but I’m not wise to think my opinion is equally valid as that of someone who has studied the matters.

I disagree that all points of view are equally valid. And I’m tired of hearing it on talk radio and seeing it in political and scientific debates.

There are informed points of view and uninformed points of view.
There are thoroughly-considered points of view and spontaneous points of view.
There are logical points of view and emotional points of view.
There are rational points of view and irrational points of view.
There are opinions based on expertise, and opinions based on hunches.
There are opinions that harmonize with a collective body of evidence and opinions that violate not only evidence but common sense.

Sorry to vent, but I just cringe when I see that phrase—especially when the stakes are high--because too frequently it is used to excuse poorly-considered and ill-reasoned opinions by someone who has run out of ammunition to defend an indefensible point of view.

[Az]

1. Post modernism and its fatal flaw

Post Modernism is the code of behavior that has enabled our diverse society to be inclusive of a multitude of different beliefs, cultures, and world views. It insists that no one group or individual can claim to be right to the exclusion of all other groups when determining the path of the society as a whole. That is everyone gets a say in the process and should respect other views. The idea being that by opening the flow of communication all views can inform one another and a consensus process can bring about an informed decision.

Trouble is this is not how things play out. Different views have different sticking points. Ideas or concepts that are nonnegotiable. And the upshot is that once these are hit within a post modern system the group either sticks to its guns and tries to force their position onto others or retreats from the process leaving a void. Eventually this boils down to dogmatic struggles between the various fighters or the system collapses due to lack of participation.

See the problem is there is no means to move towards truth. Consensus does not mean truth has been arrived at. Only that in the struggle between ideas an acceptable middle ground has been reached. The trouble with moving towards truth is that each group has its own way of discerning what truth is and it may not agree with other groups notions of truth.

Post Modern seems to work in the short term. But without a means of moving towards something of real value its just a means of holding people in place until atrophy kicks in.

[Mike03]

5. Extremely thought provoking response

Thanks. I wish I could recommend my own thread because of the maturity and level of the responses, not because of my own post.

[porphyrian]

11. Post Modernism doesn't operate in a vacuum.

Maybe I read your post wrong, but you seem to be saying that we're all trapped on an elevator with it and nothing else. I have to disagree.

I see nothing wrong with everyone getting a say in the process and respecting other views. Nor do I see a problem with opening the flow of communication so that all views can inform one another to bring about an informed decision through consensus. If this were indeed our reality, the world would approach the utopia of Star Trek's Federation. However, this is hardly what everyone believes and practices.

What consensus has the republican party sought in your lifetime? If anything, the politics of Congress have moved away hard from consensus since reagan's criminal administration, and they show little sign of stopping until they fear they aren't in control of a vote.

What consensus exists in popular culture? The People don't determine what music, fashion, movies, television, etc. we consume, our corporate handlers do, marketing what they want us to buy.

Yes, people are starved for truth, and they are desperate enough to believe almost anyone with even the smallest promise of it (if they haven't given up looking for truth altogether). But it isn't Post Modernism (which, until this post, I only associated with art) that is to blame.

[TahitiNut]

28. Truth is frightening.

When the security blanket of myth is ripped from our hands, we don't see truth; we see the monsters of our imagination. Getting tossed out of Disneyland onto the mean streets of Anaheim leaves us without what we once called "coping skills" (like standing in line and using a napkin). Hen the pimp comes along and promises to get us back into the Magic Kingdom, we do what he tells us to do - and we'll even call it love.

[guitar man]

50. conscise

to the point and wholly accurate, that's about the best I have ever heard it put :thumbsup:

[TahitiNut]

54. Gracias.

Sometimes a mixed metaphor works. :silly:

[WildEyedLiberal]

35. Very elegant summary of the problem with relativism

:thumbsup:

[Viking12]

51. Except ,of course, that it's a straw version of postmodern thought

that really has no grounding in the intellectual works of leading postmodern thinkers.

[JCMach1]

58. I love how the right-wing arguments of the anti-post-modernists like d'Souza

et al end up on a 'left' wing blog. It is unfortunate thing that most people completely conflate, or mistake the post-modernist enterprise.

Firstly, the post-modernist enterprise began with the simple observation that within language the ties between a signifier (word) AND a signified (meaning) are arbitrary at best.

Multi-culturalism and moral relativism have been tags placed on the theoretical constructs developed by the like of de Saussure, Derrida, and Foucault. Sorry, but those right-wing a-holes miss the point entirely.

For me, post-modernism reached its pinnacle in Michele Foucault and his concept of power/knowlege relations. Specific knowlege within language leads to the development of new forms of power. This can be seen as profoundly political.

For example,

Homosexual relations had been seen as a sin that could be committed from time to time, but now a group of "homosexuals" emerged. Foucault writes: "The sodomite was a recidivist, but the homosexual is now a species."

What he identifies is power, not concensus. By understanding how homosexuality is defined in classical epistemics, we come to the knowlege IS power solution and can work to shift that paradigm... that argument.

The post-modern and deconstructionist enterprise was about gaining power over discourse. The ability to construct a contra meaning gives one the ability to redirect the power of any particular argument.

Post-modernism is not atrophy and nihilism as the right would have us believe.

It is powerful tool to deconstruct even the polarities of the truth/lie system that the OP is setting up in his discussion.

It isn't ultimately a quest for truth, but a way to gain the power to unmask the lies for what they are...

[Az]

60. Oh I agree that there is value in the post modern system

The trouble is that it can be turned back on itself. As a modus of operation for a society it has great benefits if all are willing to participate and place their agendas on hold. Exchange of ideas between contra positions is vital for progress. But the failing comes in the expectation of all to continue to accept the consensus of the group. The deconstruction of positions may be valid for some but to the holders of said positions there can be issues with the interpretations. Thus they reject the process and either vie for control or retreat entirely.

Post Modern methods work as long as everyone willfully participates. It is dependent on the social contract. If that contract is abandoned by any participants the system backs up on itself.

Furthermore if the groups that reject the process turn back and use the process against itself they can attempt to foster a false image of themselves that casts them as the oppressed group when in fact it is the refusal of the system to concur with the oppression of any group. Thus their desire to oppress a group is recast as their desire to promote morality or some such redefinition. And while this tack will not phase the cogent participants it will carry weight with those who are less in tune with the process and thus it carries weight within the social setting. And as soon as you have this degree of redefinition of terms meaning of any sort drops away and the entire system defaults into whatever any particular group believes the truth to be and communication ceases.

To reiterate, Post Modernism is very valuable as long as all participants wish to partake in it honestly and are willing to place their positions open for debate. Without the ability to shift the views of the participants the system is going to hit problems.

[JCMach1]

61. I think if we accept your premise then Democracy itself is impossible

What I think you are identifying is a problem particular to political discourse since the late 20th century and nothing to do particuliarly with post-modernism...

Political discourse is no longer discourse. It is a binary system of monologues. The perfect expression of this was the show CROSSFIRE on CNN which came into being in Reagan's America in the 1980's. The model of the show had nothing to do with right, wrong, morality, or anything else. It was ultimately just two sides making noise. Emotions are stirred, but nothing even remotely looking like concensus is reached.

Discourse supposes that there are mutliple sides to almost every argument and each should be looked-at accordingly. The trouble is in the MARKETPLACE, that's not entertaining at all. Who wants to hear what the Maoists think about free trade! That shit would put you to sleep. Cue the screaming pundits.

Milton Friedman was VERY wrong. Market Captitalism (proceeded with to the extreme) KILLS Democracy and reduces freedom.

[Az]

62. You propose a utopia

I am suggesting that Post Modern methodologies cannot function in the long term in a diverse chaotic system. As a method of examining from a privileged position it can continue to function as a tool at the very least. But the cohesion of any given system is going to hit polarizing elements along the way. And these are going to undo the willingness to cooperate necessary for such a system to be maintained.

[JCMach1]

64. If the system is inherently unstable, how are post-modern methodologies

de-stabilizing?

What if we construct a new critiqe? What if it is the theology of Market Capitalism that is creating the polarizations you describe. It certainly creates such a paradigm

Something is valuable, or not
profits vs. losses

Etc. There are any number of polarities created by such a system... In fact, cooperation never enters into the picture in such a world view does it?

Or, should we say cooperation only occurs if it is profitable!



Personal note to DUers: I am not a Marxist, but I have always believed that America's success in the 20th century was due in large part to the balance between government regulation/protection and free enterprise that was struck under the New Deal. When America failed, it was because these two forces were out of balance (like now). When America maintained that balance it allowed for the freedom and creativity of the marketplace, while at the same time government served the common good of indiviual citizens. I believe in that old 18th century notion of balance politically.

[Az]

65. I think we are more in agreement than not

I do not oppose a Post Modern methodology as I cannot posit a better replacement. But I am aware of a flaw that will resurface time and time again. And it is the simple rejection of agreeing to work within the constraints of the system of any particular group. As soon as a group believes it has the numbers to go it alone and it does not have to give consideration to other groups it will jettison the social contract and move on its own as best it can to the dismay of the rest of the participants.

[JCMach1]

66. Did my post-modernism push us apart...?

Our opponents are trapped in a binary system of argumentation

good/bad
right/wrong

The beauty is that type of argument will deconstruct itself anyway, you just have to be patient. Once their argument is destroyed, they are the ones who have to face the prospect of nihilism.

[Hydra]

2. Leave it alone

most of the time, it's a polite way of saying "I'm tired of talking with you, so let's finish here. You haven't changed my mind"

While I agree with you in theory, many people get shouted down for things like 9/11 evidence and things that are obvious but unproven at the time like the US supplying weapons to the insurgency on the theory that the evidence is in, and that's it.

Well, it isn't it. Polar ice is melting faster than anyone could have imagined. Particulate pollution is actually slowing down global warming by reducing to available sunlight.

Opinions are not created equal, but only a fool believes he/she has all of the evidence.

[Mike03]

6. I agree but...

I never said anything about having "all the evidence."

I agree there can be a preponderance of evidence.

And I do believe that there is a consensus in reality, whether we as individuals choose to follow the consensus or not (I usually do not). It's important to recognize the compass points of reality.

[Hydra]

27. I did, however

in more than one case, I've seen the truth shot to s*** because all of the evidence was not available. Remember how many things that were "tinfoil" became accepted fact when the CIA family jewels came out?

You MUST have all of the evidence to say what is the truth, and what is not. Before that, you can say, "the evidence suggests" and "assuming all things are equal," but you still can't be certain. Given that fact, opinions can have validity that sound outlandish to some- you just don't know yet.

You have valid points- I argue against the willfully ignorant every day. Just watch out for that yourself. It's very easy to assume...and be very wrong.

[UncleSepp]

3. Well, there are two sides to every story...

Just kidding. That irritates the hell out of me, too. Everyone's got an equal right to have an opinion, but opinions can be right, wrong, in between, or irrelevant. Not all opinions are equally qualified, and there can be no, one, two, or more of right AND of wrong answers or opinions on any given subject. It seems that the intellectual trap of assuming that there are two and only two equal and opposing opinions on any subject is ensnaring more and more people all the time, and "you have your opinion and I have mine" ends far too many discussions.

Also, there seems to be confusion about what an "opinion" is. Some questions are not answered by opinions. If something is a matter of fact, something that can be conclusively proven or falsified, it is NOT a matter of opinion. A person can have hypotheses, theories, and conclusions which may fit the facts or not, but any "opinion" on such a matter is thoroughly irrelevant. Whether the blue sky is beautiful is a matter of opinion, but why the sky is blue is not.

I'd like to offer one of my opinions, though. You appear to have set up a series of good and bad bases for opinions, and you seem to be implying that an emotional point of view is necessarily inferior to a logical point of view. It's probably just the sentence structure - you're probably not intentionally equating an emotional point of view with an uninformed point of view or a point of view that violates not only evidence, but common sense. An emotional point of view can be valid, and for some questions, an emotional answer can be more correct than a strictly logical one. Logic and reason untempered by emotion can be as dangerous as emotion untempered by reason. Correctness and incorrectness may be judged by logic alone, but judging right and wrong cannot be.

[renie408]

4. No, they aren't

Nothing pisses me off more than somebody who says something totally batshit and then when you point out that it is batshit, says, "Well, I have a right to my view/opinion." It nearly always represents some sort of cognitive dissonance. A refusal to back off of an unsupportable 'opinion' in the face of facts. ARRRGGGHHH!!!

[valerief]

7. You know the old saying. Opinions are like a$$holes. Everyone's got one.

Now judgment, that's a different story. Perspective, facts, the good sense not to jump to conclusions, that's a whole other ball game and not many people are playing that game.

[MedleyMisty]

8. I was just discussing this last night with my husband

I was like, "Yeah, stuff like music is subjective but I'm sorry, creationism is just wrong."

Facts are facts. Deal.

I'd write a lot more but I'm kind of tired of expending a lot of effort on a post and then it being ignored (I guess tl;dr), so yeah.

[Mike03]

12. I wouldn't ignore you

I agree with you.

What posts have you made that have been ignored.

Believe me, I've made hundreds of posts that everyone ignores!!

Cheer up, and thank you for your response.

[Mike03]

13. Please don't feel down

It's not that easy to get much attention around here unless you are extremely provocative or love confrontation.

[porphyrian]

9. Opinions are equally valid, facts have to be proven.

The problem is that, for a number of reasons, we have been conditioned to accept a blurring of the distinction between fact and opinion (corporations have done it with advertising, the media has done it to invent its own relevancy, politicians to sucker voters). Evolution vs. Creationism is a false contest because only evolution is based on fact - creationism is based on faith, which is belief without the necessity of supporting evidence. You can't prove or disprove fact with an opinion. So, to answer your question, it depends on what you mean by "views."

[Az]

10. In the flury of noise that constitutes modern media

facts are what people feel are the truth. Colbert's truthiness may be funny but unfortunately it is true as well. The 24 hour news cycle has overwhelmed many people's ability to deal with issues. The Crossfire style of debate presented by the media of each side yelling its positions at each other with no resolution leaves people in a state of confusion. And from there only their emotions can lead them to any sort of certainty. So people cling to the statements that feel true more so than the ones that are actually true. Because we are all removed from the matter and only tap into it via the media we can only see what we are shown.

[porphyrian]

14. But the tolerance for different viewpoints and seeking consensus are not to blame, corporations are.

The media is. All of the once-reliable sources of truth have been bought out or discredited by corporate interests, and we are all starving and desperate for it.

[Az]

16. Agreed

And well said.

[Mike03]

18. Thank you very much for participating in this thread

because I think it is sort of in the same ballpark with your discussion "Complexity, reason, emotions and the breaking point... aka F-it"

[Az]

21. Oh definintely

I was even tempted to post a link to it in one of my responses. A great deal of resonance IMO.

[Mike03]

17. Truly, I agree with what you are saying

People cling to what feels true rather than what IS true.

It's very natural for human beings to seek comfort rather than discomfort, and that is where so much of our mis-apprehension seems to sprout from.

[Odin2005]

15. Nope. Facts are facts. An opinion that contradicts empirical evidence and logic is false, PERIOD!

I'm sick of this relativist notion that all opinions are equally valid. Sadly, this BS has become respectable because of the influence of Postmodernist nonsense. Postmodernism is dangerous subjectivist irrationalist crap at eats away at the rational fabric of Western Civilization, leaving religious dogmatism, New Age woo-woo, and other irrationalist nonsense in it's destructive wake.

Edit: Just added the 5th recomendation, off thee to the Greatest Page!!!

[Swamp Rat]

20. Define "opinion."

Opinions are not always "false," as they can also be "beliefs" or unfounded "judgements."

or

Are you referring to "legal opinions," which are formal statements based on reasoning and the principles of law?

[Odin2005]

29. Doh, I ment to say "belief," my bad. Thanks for catching that, Swampy!

The term "opinion" is better reserved for assertions subjective things, that is, ones personal likes and dislikes. All assertions held by people are beliefs, but only beliefs backed up with empirical evidence or logic can be called true (or tentatively true if one is an epistemological falliblist like myself).

[Mike03]

36. You are right, that is a

very important distinction. I felt a little discomfort using the terms "Opinion" and "Views/equally valid" interchangeably, even though I think they are the same, compared to what you are saying about being able to declare something "True."

It goes to show how engrained that fear is in me, or my generation, of saying something is "True" about of fear of hearing the response that there is no such thing as "Truth," and that everything is relative.

[UpInArms]

19. If I could make a title line "clap", I would!

You are giving an excellent argument against the "Fair and Balanced" line from Faux!

You see, if there is a crowd of 10,000 protestors against the war in Iraq - each of them bearing a sign with a fact upon it and there is a group of 2 protestors for the war in Iraq - each of them with a sign stating their level of patriotism, FAUX shows one of each (sans signs) and states that they have brought the viewing public "both sides" of the debate.

Thanks!

[Mike03]

22. Thanks to you

I had a queasy feeling I was going to get viciously attacked for this post.

[UpInArms]

25. no - that would be me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2009392&mesg_id=2009392

:toast:

[rucky]

23. Nope. There's my view, and then there are invalid views.

but that's just my humble opinion

[H2O Man]

24. Very interesting OP and thread.

I had nominated it earlier, but waited a while to respond. I remember an old Mark Twain quote that goes something like this, "The problem today is not one of ignorance; it's of people knowing so darned much that just ain't so." That holds as true for today as it was in Twain's time.

I believe that the word "opinion" implies some insight based upon knowledge of facts. Hence, there are a lot of opinions expressed on DU. But not all of the thinking on this forum qualifies an an opinion. Much of what we read is people's bias, which is a belief based upon that stuff that people know that just ain't so.

The strength of DU is twofold: (a) there is the opportunity -- daily -- to read and learn new things from people with knowledge of things that most of us don't know about; and (b) even with those things we may know about, there are intelligent people with life experiences that allow them to present the same basic facts in a different order, resulting in a different viewpoint, which allows us to see things in a new way.

[Mike03]

26. I'm open to being persuaded I'm wrong

That's part of not being absolutely certain I'm right in the first place.

Thank all of you for your input and debate. I am reading everyone's comments with appreciation and gratitude.

[mark414]

30. no. sometimes there is only one right answer. and sometimes there are five.

[Mike03]

33. Yes, I agree

The key word in your post is "sometimes."

In a Zen koan, there may be five right answers.

As to the question of who attacked the United States, there is a most likely answer, and there are very impossible answers...

Not anything is truly possible, even though that saying is another cliche many people accept.

[undergroundpanther]

31. for a person with a closed mind

what he thinks is the only truth.

To a person who's mind is too open everything is valid.

Discernment is the key.Knowing yourself and observing and seeking more information being willing to toss things out or put things in, and change the equation,moment by moment always to be suspicious of what you hear yet open enough to learn more about things.

Weird thing about people,They cannot hold two conflicting ideas or perceptions in his brain at the same time..and treat both as true.They have to ignore one idea and focus on the other or vice versa.This can occur as long as those 2 conflicting ideas are seperated from each other consiously or by denial ,that little trick to avoid dissonance is called cognitive bias.
http://www.cozahost.com/NEWSLETTERS/GENERAL/ISSUES/26MAY2006

Creativity :: Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a mental condition resulting from conflicting ideas. The information that you already know is so important that your mind has a hard time reconciling new information that is contradictory or inconsistent. It is these contradicting thoughts that drive the human mind to invent ideas and beliefs that minimize the amount of dissonance. A creative person must be able to tolerate conflicting ideas and find ways that opposites can be connected in a new point of view. The inability to tolerate opposites is an emotional block that can be overcome with practice.
http://www.braingle.com/mind/331.html
http://world-information.org/trd/intro
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/1jcl/1jcl7.htm
http://www.luckywhitegirl.com/2007/07/effects-of-post.html
http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2006/08/a_problem_in_mi.html

[bonito]

70. Hey you

That's one enlightening post! Peace :hug:

[Warren DeMontague]

32. One is entitled to one's own opinion. One is not entitled to one's own facts.

The Earth is Round- FACT.
All Life Evolved from over the 4.7 Billion Years history of that round Earth- FACT.
Human Activity is increasing CO2 concentrations in the round atmosphere of the round Earth- FACT.
CO2 lets in sunlight, but traps heat- FACT.
The sun is made up of hydrogen being fused into helium, and not of angels singing "Hallelujah"- FACT.
No matter what the Bible says, the Moon reflects sunlight. It is not self-illuminated.- FACT.
Dinosaurs and Humans did NOT coexist, on "the Ark" or anywhere else- FACT.

etc. etc.
In short, I agree with your OP. :thumbsup:

[bhikkhu]

37. ok, but you need to define "fact" to distinguish it from "belief"

in each of your examples, have you personally acquired evidence and tested it against alternate theories to sufficiently establish these "facts"? If you are like myself and the vast majority, the answer would be no. We can state them as facts because we have learned that they are facts from what we consider reliable, tested and comprehensively trusted sources and authorities.

But if you listen to a creationist or one who takes a literal interpretation of the bible and would disagree with each of these facts, the approach is identical - only their reliable and trusted sources differ. Which individual has the means and will to test and prove their sources? Neither.

For the vast majority, fact and belief are the same thing - a reliance upon one authority or other, based upon the environment of their upbringing. Mine emphasized science, yet I cannot say that I have any personal knowledge of the facts you list beyond resort to the authority of the accumulated statements of others.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Nope. Sorry. They are FACTS.

I haven't personally tested time dilation as matter approaches the speed of light, but Einstein's relativity is a FACT as well. It has been tested and verified independently. Same with the quantum equations which govern the electronics in my computer. To argue that one personally needs to verify every single piece of knowledge independently is solipsism.

Who has the means? Er, I've seen dinosaur bones. I've seen carbon dating evidence. I've seen, with my own eyes, broad deconstructions of the human genome as compared to the genomes of other animals, providing a clear evidentiary trail which perfectly matches the fossil record interpretation of evolution. All those things could, of course, be "faked" by scientists or even "satan". Hell, I could have imagined it. I might not even exist- have you ever SEEN me? I might be a figment of YOUR imagination, along with the rest of DU, your computer, the room you're sitting in, etc.

Solipsism, again.

You are arguing that Ken Ham standing in front of a Sunday School class is an equivalent "authority" on the age of the Earth as the accumulated, tested, verified and evidence-backed mass of geological, fossil, and biological scientific knowledge of the past 500 years which unequivocally states that Mr. Ham is irrevocably full of shit. "The Earth is Flat" and "The Earth is Round" are both statements, and to some extent they are both dependent upon evidence or statements from others. But one is true, and one is NOT. No amount of saying "but they're both dependent upon a reliance upon one authority or another" will change the FACT that the Earth is round.

Thank you for providing an example of precisely the kind of nonsensical flapdoodle the OP is talking about.

[bhikkhu]

67. I was hoping for a definition of the difference...

and no offence at the "nonsensible flapdoodle" but thanks for a good response. This thread could be construed as a "why" this difference exists and persists, and no illusions should be present as to how long and how deep a division it is -as far back in history as one wishes to venture. It is a general rule that behaviours which persist across time and all human cultures are a feature of innate human nature, and science would conclude that the evidence demonstrating this makes this highly probable. That is, people are most prone to believe what they are taught. Some are taught literal biblical or other traditional views, and they tend to persist in these views, others are taught more secular or scientific perspectives, and they tend to persist in these. My point is that the manner of teaching is the same, the basic causes of persistence are the same, and those who diverge from the pattern are few and far between, and largely absent from the whole argument.

I will admit that the probability of the earth being round, and quite old, is well established, but other things have been considered well established at other times - the problem lies in how these "facts" are taught. The psychology of how one accepts one view or another is identical - authority of one sort or another is produced and consent is demanded. I do not have a problem with "facts" - from a scientific perspective, facts are probabilities weighed according to quality and volume of evidence. Facts are inherently replaceable, and a reading of the history of science will find a comforting and openminded frequency in the restatement or replacement of what are called "facts". The problem is that they are not taught as such - they are taught in the same manner as religious truths, in the same manner as the post I responded to, and in an entirely different manner from that which they are treated by competent science. Appeal to authority is a fatal flaw in any scientific argument, though it is one persistently made in our schools. The reason being, I imagine, the great simplicity it provides to the mechanism of teaching. Do we teach doubt - the foundation of science - or do we teach certainty - the foundation of belief?

The result, over the long course of time, is the general lack of scientific thinking in the majority, and the proliferation of common arguments involving scientific theories and bases which are all two sides of the same coin - a coin which science itself throws away.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. I think a firm grounding in the scientific method encourages doubt.

Obviously, dogmas should be challenged. I would disagree, however, that the secular/scientific perspective is self-perpetuating in the same manner, under the same "causes of persistence", as the literal biblical or traditional views. Literal Biblical or traditional views persist despite new evidence; indeed, their supporters have to engage in ridiculous levels of denial or pretzel-bending logic to shore them up against the weight of every piece of new evidence. Conversely, the secular/scientific perspective is inherently self-challenging, inherently self-critiquing. As you point out, the facts (and I would agree, as I believe Bucky Fuller put it every proposition or belief or statement or "fact" is, in essence, a gamble) change based on new evidence- but that is science, that is how science operates.

We are, in essence, in agreement here. The need is for the teaching of science, and critical thinking skills. Both in short supply. But the challenges to evolution, to accepted science, are not coming from the front end, from the metaphysical seekers reminding us that, yes, we should question everything- of course, we should- but rather from the back end, from the dogmatists who are unhappy because their dogma has been replaced by easily provable truths backed up by mountains of evidence. They don't want to question evolution because they think everything should be questioned..they want to challenge evolution because they already HAVE all the answers, and evolution doesn't fit in with what they "know".

Sorry about the flapdoodle thing. I get tired of people, even here, going "but evolution is just a theory...." It gets old. I wish I had more time, right now, to get into this, but I don't. You raise some valid points but I don't think the problem lies with science- rather, maybe a lack of understanding of how science works in big parts of the population.

[Odin2005]

44. This is exactly the Postmodernist crap I hate.

Scientists demand that a theory makes falsifiable predictions that can be tested, which is something biblical literalists don't do. Science is not, like Fundamentalists and Postmodernists think, an "authority," it is a METHOD for putting our assertions to the test. I suggest you read some stuff by Karl Popper.

[bhikkhu]

68. my agreement and thanks

That is certainly an essential difference and a good definition of the difference. My objection was based upon the statement of "fact" as authorities themselves which must be accepted, hazarding social rejection if not - much the same way religious cosmologies proliferate. Where science would rather state facts as probabilities made likely by the weight of evidence. I have not read Popper, but the perspective I stated was greatly informed by Sagan's "A Demon Haunted World".

[distantearlywarning]

53. You just proved the OP's point. n/t

[Guaranteed]

34. There are BOUGHT opinions, and unbought ones. nt

[Quantess]

38. Make no mistake.

The Bible is the last word. The Bible is infallible! Of course all views are not "equally valid"! If it contradicts the Good Book, then it's wrong!

Face it, The Bible has blown science out of the water so many times, those scientists should just call it a day.

[annabanana]

45. lol - you forgot your

:sarcasm: tag!

[Quantess]

46. Thanks.

I thought my post was egregious enough to skip it!

[OneBlueSky]

40. there are opinions based on having lived on the planet for decades . . .

and experienced the ups and downs of life . . . and there are opinions based on having just finished school and not having had the life experience necessary to fully formulate an informed point of view . . .

[canetoad]

41. Don't fret about it

unless you're prepared to declare war on invalid views.

If you reckon you are right, whats the point of living a bitter life, the point of which is to convince others their views are wrong.

The greatest lie of all times is that viewpoints can be changed en masse by peaceful reasoning. It takes a revolution, and revolutions are driven by thugs who are directed by extreme idealists.

So, some people have invalid viewpoints. Are you big enough to educate them?

[ForeignSpectator]

42. I absolutely agree with you!

The reason for "all views are equal" is for idiots to feel eligible for the debate. Prime example are religious vs. scientific views.

In my book, a "view" scores in debate if it can be backed up by examples, evidence, facts, sources and if it follows logic and is coherent. At the end, there is a winner and loser. If the loser is fanatic, he/she is bound to get personal, call you a liar or state that after all, "all views are equal". ( prime examples are right-wingers but who am I telling this ?! )

Like you said.

This dumbing down of debates has to stop, reason has to return.

[Tesha]

43. Of course not.

Of course not.

o Many views are piteously uninformed.

o Many views are bought-and-paid-for.

o Many views are the result of mental illness.

You can see all of these processes in action here daily.

Tesha

[CT_Progressive]

47. Great Post !

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

48. I am glad you 'vented'. I have to agree with your conclusion.

Opinions or points of view are NOT equally valid. For that matter, they are NOT equally valuable. You lay out the reasons why and I don't have much to add except that, often times, opinions or points of view are based upon biases and prejudices and dogma that have no tie to reason.

[Martin Eden]

49. I am reminded of what Paul Krugman wrote in "The Great Unraveling"

I think he was referring to how the press gave Bush a free pass regarding the factual basis (or lack thereof) in his assertions regarding the likely impact of the economic policies he was proposing (but this applies to many circumstances in which all views are treated equally).

I paraphrase, because I don't remember the exact quote:

If Bush insisted the Earth was flat, the newspaper headline the next day would read: "Shape of world -- views differ"

[distantearlywarning]

52. Agreed and recommended.

I would also put forth the proposal that not all views are equally valid from a MORAL standpoint either, which is something else some DUers seem to have trouble with.

"Culture is the curse of the thinking class..." --Rush

[CTyankee]

55. This reminds me of the reason Planned Parenthood of CT did not get a chance to

get an interview on radio right after the New York abortion provider was shot and killed in his house a few years back. PPC wanted to talk about the murder but radio talk show hosts said they couldn't go on without the "other" side having equal time. PPC's response was "What? The side that says it's OK to murder doctors providing abortions?"

Crazy.

[iverglas]

56. the jerryspringerization of the world

... but mostly of the US.

“equally valid” because they are shared with equal conviction or passion

That's the key. It's not the opinion that's in issue any more -- it's the conviction with which it's held and the passion with which it's expressed that gets the applause.

Even intelligent people say dumb things like "I admire him/her for having the courage of his/her convictions", when the convictions in question are hugely stupid or horrendously vicious.

I experienced the talk show phenomenon myself as a panelist discussing addiction treatment on a Canadian TV program. The audience was packed with 12-steppers, but when I passionately argued against using public funds to coerce vulnerable people into participating in ineffective religious rituals, I got an ovation. Talk shows are just a microcosm where the phenomenon can be seen clearly.

The part that amazes me is when someone passionately expresses his/her utterly moronic/ugly "opinion" and then takes enormous offence at someone disagreeing with it and explaining why. The idea! that someone would have an opinion about one's opinion, and dare to express it.

Such people then, as you say, indicate that they're not going to argue. At that point, a reasonable person treats their words as dead air, requiring no consideration and no response.

The problem is that in public discourse, their words get heard, and can have influence. And so people like that are simply low-level demagogues. They evidently want to influence the public discourse, but to do so without providing any facts or argument to back up the conclusions they want other people to adopt.

This kind of discourse -- everyone yammering away without engaging in any genuine discussion -- is the enemy of democracy. Democratic discourse requires that each participant be prepared to offer persuasive elements in support of the conclusions s/he wants others to adopt, and be honest in what s/he says and does to persuade.

Like some other modern problems, it seems to me to stem from a real lack of comprehension of what rights are all about.

Yup, we all have the right to say any bloody thing we want. But "I have a right to my opinion" IS NOT an answer to a dispute of that opinion. It is an answer to an attempt to prevent one from expressing it or punish one for expressing it. The right to express an opinion simply does not confer immunity from criticism of the opinion, no matter how harsh the criticism.

And it does not exempt anyone from the democratic duty to be candid and sincere in one's discourse.

There are no sanctions for violating that duty, other than in the court of public opinion. It's high time that the jury in that court started passing some tougher sentences.

http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/1999/1/02/demo/Glossary/glossaryhtml/ddiscourse.html

Democratic discourse

Democratic discourse is a "civilized debate among convictions, in which one party can recognize the other parties as co-combatants in the search for authentic truths without sacrificing its own claims to validity." ... Democratic discourse is essential to a well-functioning democracy in which citizens are able to express diverse opinions in the form of "reasonable disagreement". Reciprocity is also necessary as it allows for a multi-dimensional flow of ideas and discussion which may affect all parties.

"That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it" is NOT "reasonable disagreement".

[chaska]

57. Quote:

"You have a right to your own opinion. But unless that opinion is founded on carefully considered facts, you do not have the right to have your opinion taken seriously. The lofty heights of the soapbox are for those who've earned the right to be there." Gene Downs

[AngryAmish]

59. The only valid opinion is mine

Human thought has found it's apex in me: AngryAmish. Dissent is not only mistaken but morally wrong.

Agree or suffer the wrath of every thinking person. Submit to my will or find yourself on the side of evil.

[IDemo]

63. There's a great Tom Tomorrow cartoon driving home this point