Bad thoughts 3

My cynicism shone through yesterday. Today Jamie Whyte mentions two flipsides I've been hoping for commentary on. He is clearly familiar with numerous verbal strategies to foil truth-finding attempts.

5. Motives. So true. Let a politician advocate a policy and before you know it the media has speculated on every possible motive he or his party might have for supporting it. Nevermind the benefits society might receive if it is implemented. He points out that this - the motive fallacy - is rife. So widespread that we let it pass by without another thought. His tip for spotting it in conversation - when someone uses the word "just": "You're just saying that" "He's just trying to win over voters on the left".

6. The right to your opinion. The best part in this chapter is a beautifully concise syllogism that summarises the erroneous logic, based on selective meaning of a concept ("entitlement"):

If someone is entitled to an opinion then his opinion is well-supported by evidence (this is the epistemological definition of being entitled to an opinion).
I am entitled to my opinion (in the democratic definition of being entitled to an opinion).
Therefore my opinion is well-supported by evidence.

His issue is with people who are requested to provide evidence for their viewpoint and then, upon being unable to do so, assert that they are "entitled to their opinion". At best it ends the argument inconclusively - but certainly nothing has been proved. The above syllogism, based on the semantic slide of a central concept, shows this quite well.

So finally - and this is what I'd been waiting for - Whyte points out that insisting on evidence after such a retort ("i am entitled to my opinion!") will be regarded as rude. And herein lies the rub - so I'm glad he brought it up - in many cases people will refrain from taking an unpopular view in public, even if it is true or valuable. Sad but true. Usually because of fear of punishment by the majority.

Based on that then, if I were to place a condition on any of his implications it would be the implication that one is somehow entitled to try and change someone else's opinion (even if it is incorrect). Sure. But respectfully, because occasionally they gain nothing by changing their opinion, but they may lose something in their relations with other people (losing face for instance) if they change their opinion. Whereas this may sound like timidity, there is something to be said for being agreeable.