Filtering the crap

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Ostracon, Sep 16, 2011.

  1. Ostracon Banned Banned

    At what point do you decide if an opinion is worth exploring?

    Is it when the other lacks the credentials or referencing those with credentials?
    Accepted authorities?

    I sit when it hurts your feelings and makes you reconsider your already established opinions?
    Are your feelings or the feelings of humanity in general to be considered when evaluating the validity of a proposition?

    Is it when ti goes against popular opinion or what is considered "self-evident"?
    Also known as current, modern.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. theobserver is a simple guy... Registered Senior Member

    I explore all opinions irrespective of whatever i feel about the content or the person. How far i care to explore depends on way too many factors though. Some i drop the moment i see a hole in the argument/opinion. Some i keep going on till i get to see a hole. Once i see a hole, then i spend time wondering and investigating the reasons behind my thinking there is a hole and cross examine my thoughts to see if i was being emotional over something than being critical. its usually a never ending process unless the opinion has been examined and rejected few many times in past.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    On this forum, usually reading the first couple of paragraphs of the post expressing that opinion is enough, I find.

    When blatant biases, muddy thinking and/or bad expression crop up that early, there's a better than even chance that the rest is also a time waster.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    For me, an opinion is worth exploring if

    - it interests me, or
    - it opposes my point of view -->this is the best way to test your own opinion, when you have to justify it, or
    - it exposes a new line of thought on an old topic
    - it involves something hitherto unknown or unexplored, or
    - it is controversial, or
    - I haven't an opinion on the subject

    I don't consider an opinion to need credentials or authority. All opinions are subjective and hence either stand up to examination or fail on their own.
  8. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    You can use personal description, but in my opinion all opinions are worth exploring because you never know until you know.
  9. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    If whoever express that opinion doesn't make it out as a fact instead of just an opinion. Many times I read peoples articles and they seem to be saying that their opinions are somehow factual for one reason or another. As long as they know they are only giving an opinion , not a fact, I try to read what they are discussing.
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Most of science theory, at one time or another was only an unsupported opinion. A theory often starts out as a hunch or an idea, but without conclusion legs to stand on. To become acceptable to science, it will then need to go through the process. If you just assume lack of proof means the idea has to be wrong, than all of science was wrong at one time. But if you realize, nothing in science ever appeared in its final polished form, beginning at inception, then one can be more open to the possible future.

    If you read alot, all you see is the final presentation. You do not see all the steps from inception, to pilot, to testing to publication. If you got in at the beginning, you could nip good ideas in the bud, since they will not look all polished and pretty.

    Creating a new idea, from inference, is harder than trying to deny and destroy it. Yet the cynic has no burden of proof for his claims, even while taking this much easier path. The more difficult path of creation is given a more difficult criterion by science. This critic can say this idea is lame and that is considered sufficient cynical science. But if the creator says, no this idea is good, that is called irrational.

    This double standard may be a union thing, to discourage free thinking outside the box. This mighth ensure conformity to the status quo. I empathize with those who try to take the harder path of creation, who may not be in a position to do the process all the way to polish. I try to be open minded. This is harder than be closed minded, which is part of union rules for conformity.

    The cynical scientist was suppose to be directed against the box, to open up the future. Science is always in flux to the future and the present is just a stepping stone. The cynical scientists was not meant to provide cover for the present and those in charge of the present. Science was suppose to be open to change, will pecking away at the impending obsolete.

    I like to go old school and save my criticism for the box, which is suppose to change. But if you attack the box, the laws of the cynic will change to much higher standard than against new ideas.
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    When I neglect what is on my schedule.
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Nope. Science STARTS with observation and attempts to explain those observations.

    And again, a failure to address the topic.
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Ha! That means that planet Earth and the whole Universe are constantly turning the direction of their gravity force, given that no opinion seems to be falling!
  14. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    It has to interest me, first off. If I'm not interested in something, then I won't have much motivation to explore it.

    I guess there are instrumental and employment contexts as well, where exploring something might represent a means to achieving a different end, but that doesn't really arise for me on this board.

    Many opinions stand or fall on their own merits. I can just tell by reading them that they are thought-provoking and deserve my attention. If an idea is manifestly a good idea, or even if it's an interestingly bad idea, it doesn't really matter who wrote it.

    But if somebody wants me to believe something that isn't credible by its nature, then I'm going to need some reason why I should believe what they're saying.

    I might inquire into how it is that the other person knows what they say that they know. In the area of religion, there's often very little forthcoming at that point beyond 'it's my faith'. That carries little weight with me.

    In technical contexts, where I'm a layman who's in no position to evaluate the arcane information that the other person is telling me, sometimes I have to rely on authority. In that case, I look at the speaker's education, at how their ideas are received in their broader profession, and so on. As with physicians, sometimes we need to "get a second opinion".

Share This Page