I was recently in a class where a few of us lowly undergraduates were discussing our opinions on transgenic medical techniques and therapy. Controversial, vaguely defined, budding science that everybody seems to have a strong, emotional opinion on… even if it’s the first time they’ve heard about the subject. There were a lot of statements that started with “I just think”, “well it’s just my opinion” or “I just feel like”. After the class, some rather annoyed students were discussing the speed at which some of their opinions were shot down during the discussion and how that was unfair and discriminatory that was. How can my opinion be “wrong”? After all, everyone is entitled to their opinion, right?
Not really. I should qualify that, we’re all entitled to think or believe what we want; mostly because there’s not really a way for anyone to govern that. That said; it takes a lot more than ‘just feeling’ to make an opinion worth having. Opinions don’t really fall into “right” and “wrong” categories, but you can have a “bad” opinion; they might be unsupported, incoherent, or simply irrelevant.
The trouble is that we’re accustomed to a paradigm in which having an opinion, and calling it our own somehow entitles us to hold it without challenge. This is absurd. You can hold your own opinion, but I can still think that you’re wrong, and I certainly don’t have to be quiet about it (and knowing me, I probably won’t be).
We all hold opinions about everything. They are the basis of the assumptions and decisions we make, they tell us what we think is the best choice. They are founded on our knowledge and our experiences, and they are constantly changing. Some are better founded than others; more defendable, universal. We have better reasons for holding them.
There’s the rub. We can hold opinions that we don’t have much reason for holding. Every time I see a person I’ve never met or a photo of a place I’ve never been, I have an ‘opinion’ of that person or place. I’ve got some basic reasons for feeling the way I do, but they’re pretty weak. I would never try to argue the validity of my opinion. I probably wouldn’t even say it out loud. I certainly would not expect anyone to agree with me. Most importantly, these are the opinions that are easily changed. Someone who knew that same place or person better than I did or had more relevant knowledge than me would have a better opinion. I could learn something from them and edit and update my viewpoint. Knowledge is in no small part about striving for good, well supported opinions on as much one can. We have to recognize when we hold opinions for no good reason, and why this makes them no good opinions.
This is why knowledge depends on discussion. If we want to expand your breadth of experience and the depth of our beliefs, we have to talk about them so that we can develop reasons for holding them. Encouraging people to challenge the opinions of others is a way to develop both of them, and we’re unfortunately going to discover that we hold a lot of bad, unsupported opinions.
Here’s the best way to catch yourself: When we start sentences with “I just think”, or “I just feel”, we’ve already qualified the rest of your sentence as not particularly well supported. We are disclaiming responsibility for the statement we’re about to make. It’s saying “please don’t challenge this”. Let’s try to say “I think”, not “I just think”. We shouldn’t settle for holding opinions that we can’t defend or support.
We should invite the discussion and risk the potential upheaval of our beliefs. What is left standing will be much more valuable.
I generally enjoy such opinions, because I destroy them without remorse, ended with a friendly smile to soften the blow. The thing that really gets to me though is the other extreme: strongly worded and fiercely guarded opinions based on first or second hand untruths. Those people won’t do the research to validate their opinion, and refuse to accept well supported facts in opposition. These are the people delaying our morale evolution.
Keep posting. I enjoy your work, especially next to the drivel written by most everyone within a 1 or 2 hop ‘who I know’ chain.
A person has every right to an opinion but I am under no obligation to give any respect to that opinion if I feel thet the arguement has no merit whatsoever.
If I see that the oppositoins arguments may merit some degree of plusability, I may engage in an argument to point out the flaws of theirs or learn something myself;
I see nothing wrong with my qualifying “I just think” or “I may be wrong”.
It’s big world out there and I can’t claim to be so well educated in all topics. My poorly formed opinion on these could use some argument to solidify them or shape them for the better.
I did much pholosphy in University and would have admit I did not enjoy the most of it.
The ONE and only thing I learned of use was the Platonic dialogue.
As I belive that there is no black white to Truth so then the only way we can approch truth is though argument or the diletic.
We can almost get there but a lesson from calculas is interesting. It comes from the concepts of Limits. Certain mathematiacal eqations approch these limits but NEVER can reach it. I think that same characteristic can be applied to arguments,morality,and truth.
We argue on either end of the spectrum and get closer and closer to truth but can never find it is absolute sense.
I think that saying “I may be wrong” is importantly different than saying “I just think”. However, there really isn’t such a thing as absolute truth, and I don’t believe anyone functions with such a conception. Everything is just “to the best of your knowledge”. Anybody could be wrong. I think pointing out or recognizing your own limitations with your opinion is important, and that is why I believe you can always state “I think”. One doesn’t “kind of think” or “maybe think”. You either do or you don’t hold an opinion. The ones that you want to qualify are the ones you are not sure you have enough support for. They are easily changed. It’s about owning your thoughts and beliefs, and being open to changing them. That is the beauty of the Platonic dialogue – trying to reason, using the evidence you have at your disposal from your experiences, to develop the best (most logical) conclusion. As our data set (experiential knowledge) increases, it may change our conclusions. They are never absolute.
I rather enjoy the fiercely guarded – logically unsupported opinions based on false claims because it’s often easier to refute these claims directly than it is to have to go through the entire argument. That said, if people so readily form fierce, illogical opinions without doing their research, they are most likely not the type to respond well to reason. Unfortunately this dissonance is more prevalent than one might hope. In true Kuhnian paradigm-shift fashion, often these people will live their whole lives with that unreasonable framework (though some might be convinced to change), and it is up to subsequent generations to be different.