# Food for thought



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 30, 2015)

For the "all opinions are equal" crowd


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jul 30, 2015)

That statement doesn't mean that there are "right/superior opinions" that one just has to hold to be universally "right", but that opinions come in different degrees of substance. It most definitely wasn't meant in a way that there's only one that actually _has_ substance.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 30, 2015)

No but it says clearly that an educated opinion is worth more than an uneducated opinion, which a lot of people will not acknowledge in this era.


----------



## reddognoyz (Jul 30, 2015)

Don't get all uppity on my Jay, with your fancy dancy talk. I am voting from Donald Trump, and no smarty mouth talk's gonna convince me otherwise, he'll make us all rich!!!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 30, 2015)

ROTFL!


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jul 30, 2015)

Agreed on educated opinions, but what education is is far more a sociopolitical and historic matter than we'd perhaps like it to be. In terms of music, Theodor Adorno most certainly would have had a completely different view on educated opinions in music than someone, let's say, devoted to Cultural Studies.  In the end, it does always come down to what is canon, what is not, what is thinkable and which authority defines which boundaries. Which personally makes me shy away from absolutisms.

Personally, I'd vote for Donald Duck because he'd make us all rich.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 30, 2015)

the problem with that quote, and most arguments about opinions, is that there is a wide range of opinions, even on opinions.

It is true that some facts are generally accepted as true, the earth is (more-or-less) round, chopping off one's head will result in death, and so on.

There are also facts which wander into the territory of opinion, or informed opinion. Current changes in the global climate are difficult to dismiss, and it is equally difficult to argue that mankind has not played a role, but we do not know enough to be able to state with some degree of certainty that mother nature does not also have a hand in this. Our records do not go back nearly far enough.

That's ok, there are lots of things in nature that we still do not understand. We're working on it, for sure, but we are not there yet.

I think (my opinion) the root of current debates about the values of opinions, and fact vs opinion can be found in the good old world wide web. It has never been so easy to disseminate misinformation. Some is spread for malicious reasons, most is spread out of ignorance. People don't check their facts. I read on the internet just yesterday that 96.32468599% of the population will repost a comment that is aligned with their belief systems. Really.

An educated opinion, or a well formed opinion is still that, an opinion. It may be based on facts, but at some point it makes a leap to opinion.

This should not (again, my opinion) be confused with beliefs themselves. We are entitled to our beliefs, no matter how they came to be, just so long as they do not interfere with the basic rights of others. I can believe that there is a God, or that there isn't, and it really has no bearing on your basic rights. Most folks do seem to get that, but there is always, it seems, a vocal minority that seems to think that their beliefs are the only ones that matter. They do cause problems.

To be fair, society has advanced (or in some cases slid backwards) to the point where some competing belief systems do have a difficult time co-existing with others. The easiest example is pro-life vs pro-choice. Both sides use the beginning of life as their lynch pin, and since science can not yet say with certainty just when that happens, both sides feel justified in pressing for the elimination of the other. That's right, both sides of this argument have beliefs, and opinions formed from those beliefs, on their side... go figure.

Anti-intellectualism has been around for at least as long as I have. It was not cool to be the smartest kid in class when I was in school, it was much more important to be able to sink a 3 pointer, pitch a no-hitter, or run 100 yards with 11 guys trying to knock you down - among other things. Fortunately, most bright kids figured out pretty early on that it was still important to work up to their potential, but it wasn't always easy.

What we have seen in the last 15 years or so seems almost like a backlash against the late 90s when the nerds/geeks came into power. Again just my opinion, worth what you paid for it, but it does strike me as odd that it became fashionable to be smart, and then it suddenly became fashionable to ignore facts or just make up your own?

Whatever it is, it really is easier than ever to fact check those insulting, infuriating posts. If they are false you can let folks know they are false, or just move along.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 30, 2015)

That is all fine, Bill, and I am certainly not saying, nor was the late Mr. Asimov, that an educated opinion will always be empirically correct and an uneducated opinion will always be empirically wrong. 

But I have seen people here literally write: "Well, I don't have any real knowledge about this" and then when challenged by someone who actually does, then respond "well that is your opinion but my opinion is just as valid because they are both just opinions."

But as Craig Sharmat once memorably said to me, "Jay, you don't understand. Most people don't like to be told that they are wrong."

I _do_ want to be told, especially by someone with more knowledge, so that I can grow. 

That is what Mr. Asimov was talking about.


----------



## jacobthestupendous (Jul 30, 2015)

Regardless of how superior your knowledge may be to my ignorance, if we live in a true democracy, my ignorance has the same number of votes. This is why most of history's smartest philosophers have judged democracy to be a terrible idea.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jul 30, 2015)

jacobthestupendous said:


> This is why most of history's smartest philosophers have judged democracy to be a terrible idea.



While the oligarchies and dictatorships throughout history have consistently put the finest of individuals in the seat of power and brought forth only the best for societies at large


----------



## sleepy hollow (Jul 30, 2015)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> While the oligarchies and dictatorships throughout history have consistently put the finest of individuals in the seat of power and brought forth only the best for societies at large


Come on, you know he wasn't saying that.  It's not about dictators, but about putting smart and responsible people in control.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jul 30, 2015)

sleepy hollow said:


> Come on, you know he wasn't saying that.  It's not about dictators, but about putting smart and responsible people in control.



Sure, I do know that. But as frustrating as democracy is, it still is the best system humanity came up so far. Just in terms of results and overall well being.

For some reason, humans are incredibly terrible at putting smart and responsible people in control. I don't know why that is.  Perhaps it's not really a position that individuals can really live up to.


----------



## sleepy hollow (Jul 30, 2015)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> For some reason, humans are incredibly terrible at putting smart and responsible people in control. I don't know why that is.  Perhaps it's not really a position that individuals can really live up to.


Yeah, it's hard to understand. My personal theory: Almost all the people "in charge", and I'm talking about the top tier positions in politics, business, financial industry, etc., show signs of sociopathic and psychopathic behaviour. And that behaviour is the reason why those people make it to the top - "normal" people don't want to do that job. Sane, rational thinking and responsible people normally aren't up for election/aren't up for the top tier management job.

Well, in reality it's a bit more complicated, but I guess you know what I mean.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jul 30, 2015)

Yes, that might seem like a loaded assertion, but I also truly believe there's quite a bit of truth in that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 30, 2015)

And yet Jay is the guy who thinks being a self-professed centrist isn't false equivalence.

Bill wrote:

"Current changes in the global climate are difficult to dismiss, and it is equally difficult to argue that mankind has not played a role, but we do not know enough to be able to state with some degree of certainty that mother nature does not also have a hand in this. Our records do not go back nearly far enough."

They go back a few hundred years, showing a rapid rise in greenhouse gases that started exactly with the industrial revolution. That's far enough to state with 100% certainty that it's groundless to believe that nature has anything the frick to do with it. Not impossible, just totally groundless.

But sure, you're free to believe anything you want.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 30, 2015)

Well, I don't agree with everything Bill wrote, but it was OT the point I was interested in making, so I let it slide


----------



## jacobthestupendous (Jul 30, 2015)

Megalomaniacs are attracted to positions of power (like elected office) just like bullies are attracted to positions of authority (like police officer). Those positions are both difficult to fill with ideal candidates because they are attractive to less-than-ideal ones.

To speak to the original post idea, people bristle at elitism when they are not members of the elite, and intellectualism is just a flavor of elitism.


----------



## KEnK (Jul 30, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Bill wrote:
> 
> "Current changes in the global climate are difficult to dismiss, and it is equally difficult to argue that mankind has not played a role, but we do not know enough to be able to state with some degree of certainty that mother nature does not also have a hand in this. Our records do not go back nearly far enough."
> 
> They go back a few hundred years, showing a rapid rise in greenhouse gases that started exactly with the industrial revolution.


Entirely OT, but...
Actually, through studying Arctic and Antarctic ice samples, the record/evidence of the atmospheric conditions
dates back tens of thousands of years.
Man made climate change is not an opinion.
The verdict has been in for a while now, Science won.

k


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 30, 2015)

Yes, I meant to write a few hundred *thousand* years.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 30, 2015)

Jimmy, what we have today is a mockery of democracy, not democracy.

When it takes huge amounts of money to get anything done, no matter what it is, that's not democracy.


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 30, 2015)

True intellectualism comes from self advancement, not indoctrination, religion or a belief system.
The term anti intellectual is just a nifty way to point out someone (probably on your payroll) is an intellectual, and to even debate this person makes you an "anti" intellectual.

I always love watching brilliant people debate various topics of interest to me.
One of my old time favorites was Gore Vidal.
I suggest to anyone here who falls for this political correctness and anti this and that jive to read his biography.

The era of political correctness is coming to an end, if not I will continue on the same way.
But I would love to return to an era of respect and consideration.
Liberalism and Conservatism has turned the un intellectuals against each other, as the intellectuals laugh over dinner as their Sheep fight.............


----------



## wolf (Jul 30, 2015)

There seems to be a confusion between knowledge (“ facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.”) and opinion (“a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge”). I A did not say “my ignorance is just as good as your educated opinion”.

Democracy is not the best system humanity came up with so far - not by a long shot. Democracy is indeed an unstable form of organizing a community if certain things are not in place. Which is why the USA opted for a constitutional republic based on democratic principles with checks and balances so it at least becomes harder to abuse power. I understand it such that the constitution establishes certain ground rules so that mob rule (pure democracy where discrimination of minorities is unavoidable unless it’s a nation of highly educated, tolerant, compassionate people) can be avoided.

And even a constitutional republic based on democratic principles can only function equally for all if it’s participants are educated - at least to the point that proper reasoning, logic, information gathering, fact checking… are universal traits. It wouldn’t mean that everybody has to be an expert in everything but that we, upon considering facts and opinions presented by the experts, can make well reasoned informed decisions. That takes mental work - which seems unpopular for many.

Also it’s “a republic, if you can keep it” (B Franklin) which means to me: the citizen’s responsibility does not start nor end at the voting booth.

I’d like Isaac to consider that those who want to do so have become vastly better, slicker, more insidious at shaping the choices the masses make. One consequence I see is that we have frequent blatant lying by many of our elected officials, yet many are still in office.

Jimmy, I think the problem is rather that many smart and reasonable people have no interest in governing - so many more interesting and rewarding things to do. Which leaves the gap open for the power hungry ( yes, sociopaths rule).

jacobthestupendo, my guess is that I A did not understand intellectualism as form of elitism but rather as a form of making sense of the world and coming to knowledge and decisions; probably dreaming of a Utopia where all people exhibit such traits. I also assert that being intellectual does not exclude one from feeling emotions, being a mystic or just plainly having fun. (just saying; not implying that you meant to stated that)

yes, education depends on circumstances and needs. But we have very well established principles of proper (effective, logical, leading to predictable results) thinking that should be part of any education. Much more so than the outdated model of drilling students in data retention. Computers are better at that and we do best when we learn how to use that power to inform proper thinking.

pro life vs pro choice. each of these terms implies a false dichotomy. and the discussion between the two options does the same. part of anti-intellectualism as I see it happen is when complicated issues are reduced to such either/or - if you’re not for me, you’re against me - sound bites.

btw, I also see a two party political system as a false dichotomy - or false trichotomy because one can run as an “independent”.

being the smartest kid (or man/woman in class or wherever) is actually not a problem if one is cool (or not a jerk; friendly; helpful; likable (whatever that means)) otherwise.

Jacob: your “ignorant vote” only theoretically carries all the way though to a decision influencing the whole community. It’s a representative form of government after all - and there’s all sorts of influences (dare I say corruption) between your vote and what actually happens. in other words: we need to be vastly more vigilant than we may think. to say it again: our responsibility does not end at the voting booth.

Donald Duck would be about as effective a president as Bart Simpson. We certainly don’t live in a meritocracy. More like in a nation where the slickest orator wins because he/she sways the most people. but even that might be an idealistic view considering how things stand.

finally, I for one do not want to be told that I am wrong. especially not if it ends there. However, just like Jay, I want to learn (at least I tell myself that story - of course I also want to be admired all the time  ) and enjoy receiving well articulated, informed, competent feedback that gives me stuff to act on. But just telling me “you’re wrong” is a bit too lazy for me to enjoy or want it. But that’s semantics. I think I understand and agree with what Craig meant.


----------



## Resoded (Jul 30, 2015)

Well, in that case, what is knowledge? Is knowledge an opinion?

Is it possible for experts to form opinions based on knowledge that after being executed turns out to be wrong?

You listen to the doctor when he says that the sick person needs bed rest and antibiotics. You do not listen to the doctor when he says the sick person needs to be beheaded.

You listen to Zimmer, Williams, Newton-Howard, JXL when they say "develop your own sound and work hard to perfect your craft". You do no listen to them when they say "the key to finding a theme is through painting your body red, riding a giraffe backwards, while yelling things such as; 'Look at me, I'm a strawberry!', or 'This yellow horse is marvelous!'.

In my opinion, one of the problems with elitism is that it focuses on the person rather than the argument and facts supporting it.

I guess my point is: From a democratic standpoint, people are equal, arguments are not. Does that make sense or am I just rambling again?


----------



## Wooloomooloo (Jul 31, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> No but it says clearly that an educated opinion is worth more than an uneducated opinion, which a lot of people will not acknowledge in this era.



Your original quote doesn't say that at all. Such an inference can only be based on conflating opinions and facts.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 31, 2015)

Wooloomooloo said:


> Your original quote doesn't say that at all. Such an inference can only be based on conflating opinions and facts.



So when he writes about the false notion that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" he is _not_ saying that an educated opinion is worth more?


----------



## Wooloomooloo (Jul 31, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> So when he writes about the false notion that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" he is _not_ saying that an educated opinion is worth more?



He's not talking about opinions at all. He's talking about knowing and not knowing. Facts and falsehoods. 

Even if you argue that an one opinion is more informed than another, attributing a value (it's _worth_ more) is dangerous, because value is also subjective measuring validity through worth actually takes you down the path he's trying to avoid.

It's even especially dangerous when your subtext is to apply this to something like music.

I think Beethoven is better than Bony M
I think Bony M is better than Beethoven

Both opinions. Both equally valid. If you try and assign a value to one of the opinions, you're going to get into trouble.

What Asimov is talking about is more like:

Climate change is a grave threat to the humanity
Climate change is a conspiracy created by neo-liberals to stifle freedom and liberty

One of these is a is an informed opinion, backed by science and verifiable facts. The other is an ill-informed opinion, and is factually wrong. 

One important thing, in my opinion, is being informed has nothing to do with education, especially formal education. Education has been as culpable for reinforcing falsehoods as almost any other medium.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 31, 2015)

Wooloomooloo said:


> One important thing, in my opinion, is being informed has nothing to do with education, especially formal education. Education has been as culpable for reinforcing falsehoods as almost any other medium.



Total nonsense. Just my opinion of course


----------



## Wooloomooloo (Jul 31, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> Total nonsense. Just my opinion of course



My opinion is better informed than yours. Here's my factual support:

The most popular history book ever to be used in high schools throughout the USA (The American Journey), it says that Texas seceded from the Union prior to the Civil War due primarily to States Rights - specifically that the Federal Government had been 'derelict' in their duty to enforce the fugitive slave act and denying southern states equal right to additional territory.

When Texas actually seceded, in their articles of secession, Texas made it very clear as to why they were leaving the union. This is the actual text:

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

State rights eh? So the reason people are completely ignorant to the reasons of the civil war, isn't because they hold opinions that are not educated, indeed they are, it's that the education system propagates many myths about our fine nation, and others.

BTW, I am not coming from a position of some home-schooled "university of life" anti-intellectual. I have 2 degrees, including a masters, I read the New Yorker, I love Beethoven, and I am probably a bit of an intellectual snob... but Asimov wasn't talking about opinion or taste.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 31, 2015)

Wooloomooloo said:


> My opinion is better informed than yours. Here's my factual support:
> 
> The most popular history book ever to be used in high schools throughout the USA (The American Journey), it says that Texas seceded from the Union prior to the Civil War due primarily to States Rights - specifically that the Federal Government had been 'derelict' in their duty to enforce the fugitive slave act and denying southern states equal right to additional territory.
> 
> ...


For every factual error you could list there are probably 1,000 correct ones. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And I will take Asimov's dinotation rather than your belief about his connotation.


----------



## gbar (Jul 31, 2015)

Three words: *Dunning–Kruger effect*.

Explanation (from Wikipedia): The *Dunning–Kruger effect* is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to accurately evaluate their own ability level. Conversely, highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks that are easy for them are also easy for others.

----

It has always been this way most likely. The difference, I think, is that we are bombarded by everybody being online all the time and more TV channels (etc), so... if you don't logoff, turn off the computer and TV and step away from the browser, twitter feed, etc ... you are going to encounter a lot more people who are absolutely certain about many things they have no first-hand knowledge about and who have little or no background that provides useful context for whatever they are pontificating about.

And that's assuming good faith on the part of those expressing themselves.


----------



## Wooloomooloo (Jul 31, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> For every factual error you could list there are probably 1,000 correct ones.



Via education? That's probably true, but what's the value in those facts? Knowing how many kilometers there are in a mile, or who was the first man on the moon pale into insignificance when compared to 'facts' (or falsehoods) that inform lifelong opinions, such as your attitudes towards race, or women etc.



> You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And I will take Asimov's dinotation rather than your belief about his connotation.



His d*e*notation and what you said in your second post are completely different - that was a connotation.

If you'd read Asimov's entire article rather than just his quote, you'd be agreeing with me. Here's something else he said in that article:

"There are *200 million Americans who have inhabited schoolrooms at some time in their lives *and who will admit that they know how to read (provided you promise not to use their names and shame them before their neighbors), but most decent periodicals believe they are doing amazingly well if they have circulations of half a million. It may be that only 1 per cent–or less―of Americans make a stab at exercising their right to know. And if they try to do anything on that basis they are quite likely to be accused of being elitists."

My emphasis, but clearly Asimov is not conflating education with knowing.

Here is the full article.

http://media.aphelis.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ASIMOV_1980_Cult_of_Ignorance.pdf


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 31, 2015)

Well anything you learn, wherever you learn it from, IS education. I never said strictly formal education. One can be an autodidact and be very well educated.

But Gbar's post about The *Dunning–Kruger effect (*which I did NOT know about, so thanks Gbar) is surely what Asimov is railing against and my point in posting the quote I posted. Agreed?


----------



## gbar (Jul 31, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> Well anything you learn, wherever you learn it from, IS education. I never said strictly formal education. One can be an autodidact and be very well educated.
> 
> But Gbar's post about The *Dunning–Kruger effect (*which I did NOT know about, so thanks Gbar) is surely what Asimov is railing against and my point in posting the quote I posted. Agreed?



True story: At one point, I thought I was kind of smart in computer tech kind of stuff. Got As in University, shined among my peers at work (in my opinion anyway), and I was driven. So I arranged for a transfer to a famous research facility where I was one of two guys without at least a PhD. And I struggled. I felt like a C student all the time. People would be arguing about things like electron spin in the hallways. Four people there had Nobel Prizes.

Then one day it hit me... I will be lucky to ever get a raise working here because I am the slow child.

So I arranged another transfer to consulting and made 2x as much, but I had to travel all the time for about 7 years. 

If I had been nearly as smart and motivated as I believed I was, I would have stuck with research, though. But it was a lot of work. And everybody there was a workaholic so I couldn't make up for my ability-shortfall by working harder either.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 1, 2015)

Anybody who has heard a confident, bad singer has experienced The Dunning–Kruger effect.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 1, 2015)

Question: what are we talking about?

Someone who's studied scripture is no more qualified to say God and Hell exist than someone who hasn't. A trained musician isn't more qualified to say he likes or dislikes a piece of music. But he is more qualified to tell you why your chord changes don't work and your orchestration is muddy.

Is this a general philosophical thread or is there an actual point?


----------



## Daryl (Aug 2, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Question: what are we talking about?
> 
> Someone who's studied scripture is no more qualified to say God and Hell exist than someone who hasn't. A trained musician isn't more qualified to say he likes or dislikes a piece of music. But he is more qualified to tell you why your chord changes don't work and your orchestration is muddy.


The problem with that is if someone can't tell that their chord changes don't work and their orchestration is muddy, training is seen to be unnecessary.

D


----------



## tokatila (Aug 2, 2015)

Daryl said:


> The problem with that is if someone can't tell that their chord changes don't work and their orchestration is muddy, training is seen to be unnecessary.
> 
> D



Reminds me that Ira Glass where he was talking about the importance of your "taste" in a sense of knowing your work being as good as it good be. I find it hard to know if my taste is good enough, since those suffering from Dunning-Kruger effect will illusory do so too.


----------



## SergeD (Aug 2, 2015)

« Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu’une tête bien pleine. » 
Montaigne

And anybody having common sense will agree that an educated spirit is worth nothing to one person who does not possess common sense.


----------



## TheRoot (Aug 2, 2015)

gbar said:


> Three words: *Dunning–Kruger effect*.
> 
> Explanation (from Wikipedia): The *Dunning–Kruger effect* is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to accurately evaluate their own ability level. Conversely, highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks that are easy for them are also easy for others.



Thanks for that. In the context of "Opinions" I like to quote the article from the Huston-Press: http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/no-it-s-not-your-opinion-you-re-just-wrong-updated-7611752



> I have had so many conversations or email exchanges with students in the last few years wherein I anger them by indicating that simply saying, "This is my opinion" does not preclude a connected statement from being dead wrong. It still baffles me that some feel those four words somehow give them _carte blanche_ to spout batshit oratory or prose. And it really scares me that some of those students think education that challenges their ideas is equivalent to an attack on their beliefs.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 2, 2015)

JonFairhurst said:


> Anybody who has heard a confident, bad singer has experienced The Dunning–Kruger effect.


LoL...
Spot on JF.
Im an anti elitist like the folks who hired Jonathon Gruber (genius...if you dont believe me just ask him) who vlaimed they never heard of him.


----------

