Entitled to one's opinion

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
Can someone provide a rough but meaningful breakdown of the world into different categories about which one might have an opinion, and, for each category, write some of the requirements one must meet (in terms of knowledge, prior contemplation, etc) in order to be entitled to an opinion about things in that category?

If I hear one more person failing ...[text shortened]... on RHP), I'm probably going to drink some Drano (note: I am not actually going to drink Drano).

Nope. Sorry.

"Public Opinion... an attempt to organize the ignorance of the community, and to elevate it to the dignity of physical force."
Oscar Wilde

"The world is governed by opinion."
Thomas Hobbes

"The circumstances of the world are so variable that an irrevocable purpose or opinion is almost synonymous with a foolish one.”
William Shakespeare

"The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion."
Arnold Glasgow

"New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common."
John Locke

"Nothing is more conducive to peace of mind than not having any opinions at all."
G. C. Lichtenberg

"Literature is strewn with the wreckage of men who have minded beyond reason the opinions of others."
Virginia Woolf

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
Can someone provide a rough but meaningful breakdown of the world into different categories about which one might have an opinion, and, for each category, write some of the requirements one must meet (in terms of knowledge, prior contemplation, etc) in order to be entitled to an opinion about things in that category?

If I hear one more person failing ...[text shortened]... on RHP), I'm probably going to drink some Drano (note: I am not actually going to drink Drano).

I think Bill Murray drank some Drano in Coffee and Cigarettes, a Jim Jarmusch film.

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
Can someone provide a rough but meaningful breakdown of the world into different categories about which one might have an opinion, and, for each category, write some of the requirements one must meet (in terms of knowledge, prior contemplation, etc) in order to be entitled to an opinion about things in that category?

If I hear one more person failing ...[text shortened]... on RHP), I'm probably going to drink some Drano (note: I am not actually going to drink Drano).

It seems you are speaking of epistemic justification for expressing a belief. Someone who expresses a belief without any epistemic justification is just being lazy or irresponsible (lazy if they just don’t want to go to the trouble to offer their justifications, irresponsible if they actually have none)—and saying something like, “It’s just my opinion” means nothing. I cannot think of any category that ought to be excluded. What is the purpose of communicating a belief for which one is unwilling to communicate a justification? [EDIT: Well, maybe spruce's Oscar Wilde quote...?]

Sometimes people may fear to offer their justifications because they fear a valid challenge to those justifications that might threaten precious beliefs. Sometimes people may fear to examine for themselves the justifcatory basis (or lack thereof) for their beliefs for the same reason. In which case they are perhaps being self-deceitful.

If I engage in argument/discussion/debate (e.g., on a forum such as this), I fully expect to have my justifications challenged; my main purpose may even be—not strictly to defend my belief—but to test the validity and the sufficiency of my justifications for that belief against other minds. A person who attempts to engage in such discussion without being willing to offer such justifications, I would think is acting in “bad faith” (consciously or not).

If someone offers an “opinion” while being unwilling to offer any epistemic justification, then it seems appropriate to simply point out that such an opinion is not worth any consideration—and give it none.

Don’t drink the Drano.

Originally posted by vistesd


Sometimes people may fear to offer their justifications because they fear a valid challenge to those justifications that might threaten precious beliefs. Sometimes people may fear to examine for themselves the justifcatory basis (or lack thereof) for their beliefs for the same reason. In which case they are perhaps being self-deceitful.

If I engage ...[text shortened]... that such an opinion is not worth any consideration—and give it none.

Don’t drink the Drano.

The Drano remains undrunk.

I'm glad you read my somewhat whiny post, and responded. It's worthwhile, at least to me, to try to place my complaint in its proper context, which I'll attempt to do here. For reasons I hope to make clear, the question "What are some epistemic virtues, and what are good ways to practice them?" is a shortcut into some thorny being-a-good-human type issues, and I think proper circumspection underlies many of these epistemic virtues and their corresponding (which correspondence I'll try to sketch out here) moral ones.

I have a feeling that you've thought about everything I'm about to post more carefully than I have, and that your recommendation that one actually not consider things which are not worth consideration -- not an easy task -- probably points to practical solutions to some of the difficulties I will raise.

As such, you are probably one of the last people at whom this post is directed. I also fear that it isn't going to express the things I want to say very clearly or in the tone I have in mind. It's even possible that I'll be guilty of exactly the things I'm complaining about at some points in the post, and, in this case, it would be useful for everyone if the target audience of this post found these instances and called me out.

It seems you are speaking of epistemic justification for expressing a belief. Someone who expresses a belief without any epistemic justification is just being lazy or irresponsible (lazy if they just don’t want to go to the trouble to offer their justifications, irresponsible if they actually have none)—and saying something like, “It’s just my opinion” means nothing. I cannot think of any category that ought to be excluded. What is the purpose of communicating a belief for which one is unwilling to communicate a justification? [EDIT: Well, maybe spruce's Oscar Wilde quote...?]

I agree with this completely; I suppose my post literally asked for a list of different sorts of opinion, with a set of (loose) criteria for each entry on the list which would determine whether some attempted justification should be considered convincing. However, I intend to take this further -- my complaint was not merely about beliefs expressed with insufficient epistemic justification; it extends to improperly justified beliefs held privately, at least where those beliefs have the potential to affect one's actions at some other time, or one's other beliefs.

In my post, I was essentially begging people to acknowledge three things:

1. Understanding things is hard. Anyone who has tried to understand any averagely complicated thing in a clear and complete way will have invested considerable effort in this task, and also will likely have observed that the complement of the subject of their understanding in the totality of things to be understood is huge. It follows that any simple statement, phrased so as to express a certainty, which applies to a large portion of said totality is probably insufficiently justified, since it is unlikely to be the result of the kind of understanding-effort alluded to previously.

To illustrate this, consider a serious, focused discussion of the type very occasionally conducted in this forum (or imagine some other example -- I'm thinking of a paper about topology I spent several hours today reading; another good example is to try to deduce a person's motive in a specific situation from xyr actions). In the course of this discussion, new information will constantly come to light, and the participants will put considerable effort into clearly understanding the issue at hand. The RHP forums are an interesting example of the above scenario ceasing to reflect reality as the question becomes more broad.

The reason for this is that, in the above sense, understanding things is hard, and to claim understanding (even to oneself) that can be phrased in a broad way is likely to be an exercise in deceit, which deceit tends to grow in magnitude with the size of the issue, unless the qualifications to the claim of understanding also grow.

The archetypal traps of 1. are the hasty generalisation and the conclusion-jumped-to.

2. Everything any individual knows is from that point of view. I don't intend any solipsistic corollary to this, because this circumstance can be overcome to a large extent with some imagination. In fact, many good habits of thought are essentially procedures for identifying when some claim is independent of personal viewpoint (statements which we call "true" are characterised by such an independence of viewpoint, and some have probably argued, although I disagree, that "true" and "independent of viewpoint" are equivalent). For example, the scientific requirement that experimental results be reproducible is largely a way to ensure that the data obtained is unrelated to the circumstances under which the experiment was conducted, in particular the viewpoint of the experimenter.

The whole practice of abstract thought is an example of a means of using human imagination to get around difficulty 2. By constructing general concepts which, by design, are determined by well-defined common features of specific experiences, we are able to think with a general mind, rather than with our own specific, limited one.

The archetypal trap set by 2. is self-centredness in belief, which is closely related to the hasty generalisation.

3. This is dual to 2., in a sense: one's point of view on a specific experience is rarely independent of one's past experiences, and in particular the ways in which one has been socialised to interpret things.

The archetypal trap set by 3. is the deeply-held belief; the conviction. One way, I think, to combat 3. is to try to be mindful of one's specific circumstances (this can mean being literally observant of one's environment or not projecting one's own thoughts onto the words of others or any number of other things). This is "antidote" is, I think, a particularly difficult and worthwhile part of "understanding things" in the sense of 1.

The practice of recognising these three notions, and making good-faith attempts not to fall into the traps they set, are major aspects of what I will term "proper circumspection".

If proper circumspection were merely about the expression of beliefs, then I wouldn't be as concerned about it as I am. However, I think that the three aspects of proper circumspection I've mentioned above are necessary for having the means and motivations to behave morally toward oneself and one's fellow people.

One very literal consequence of 2. is that one is alone at any given instant. Just as we didn't give in to 2. in general above, we needn't be defeated by aloneness. The abstraction that we suggested as a way to avoid self-centredness in one's beliefs projects to an ability to share other people's experience -- this is relating to others, empathy. I suspect it's hard to empathise in the absence of the general habit of thinking beyond one's own direct experience. Therefore, in the absence of proper circumpspection, one really is quite alone, which aloneness has all sorts of attendant cruelty and narcissism and nastiness. This is a very deep pit to fall in.

On the other hand, it's also very easy to become wrapped up in involuted abstractions in a way that avoids using one's imagination to relate to others, and this is something that must be guarded against. This is probably a shallower pit to fall in, in the sense that the escape ladder is present, it's just been temporarily placed perpendicular to the wall.

1. and 3. allow a person to have a static (via 1) mindset (via 3). The meta-belief that one has simply expressible certain knowledge about broad things is part (a large part, I would say) of the basis for all sorts of immorality, especially the tribalistic flavours of disregard for one's fellow humans. Particularly disgusting to me at the moment is the phenomenon in which individuals believe that groups of which they are members by accident are somehow privileged. This is pure 1+3.

I haven't given anything like an exhaustive account of how habitually getting into epistemic hot water tends to lead to immorality and meanness, but I'm pretty convinced that this is true, and if the subject didn't seem so huge to me, I'd try to elaborate. If anyone is interested, I would love to hear from them about this issue. Also, I'm painfully aware that I've made more assertions that I've justified here. I'd prefer to handle this by writing my justifications as challenges arise, for the sake of efficiency.

Finally, of particular interest would be to talk about:

*How to relate to the world and oneself in a properly circumspect way;
*How to avoid the pointless anger and flirtation with hypocrisy evidenced in my original complaint.

Peace, all,
CL

EDIT Grrrrrr, I didn't really manage to say many of the things I wanted to in this post. It reads like I'm making a big deal about obvious things, but I think I had a few things in mind actually worth discussing. At least the "I know it when I see it" aspect about the moral part of failed proper circumspection, which arouses such strong feelings, doesn't really come across in this post, which is dangerously hypocritical.

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
The Drano remains undrunk.

I'm glad you read my somewhat whiny post, and responded. It's worthwhile, at least to me, to try to place my complaint in its proper context, which I'll attempt to do here. For reasons I hope to make clear, the question "What are some epistemic virtues, and what are good ways to practice them?" is a shortcut into some tho which is dangerously hypocritical.

Good and helpful presentation. Just some brief comments:

It's even possible that I'll be guilty of exactly the things I'm complaining about at some points in the post

Last night, I considered that I had done just that in a debate with Palynka… 🙁 Your point about presenting justifications as challenges arise is, I think, very valid for forums such as these. However, I also have a tendency to “think out loud” on here, letting my own beliefs form and reform in the face of argument; I admit that that can cause confusion, and should probably try to state up-front that that's what I'm doing when I do it...

it extends to improperly justified beliefs held privately, at least where those beliefs have the potential to affect one's actions at some other time, or one's other beliefs.

I agree. Irresponsibility toward one’s own belief-formation, and self-deception, are not inconsequential. What is required is vigilance and the willingness to challenge one’s own thinking (“proper circumspection” ).

Everything any individual knows is from that point of view.

Perspectivism. No one has a “view from nowhere”, or everywhere. By study and engaging in dialogue, we can try to gain some views from “elsewhere” than our habitual perspective.

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
The Drano remains undrunk.

I'm glad you read my somewhat whiny post, and responded. It's worthwhile, at least to me, to try to place my complaint in its proper context, which I'll attempt to do here. For reasons I hope to make clear, the question "What are some epistemic virtues, and what are good ways to practice them?" is a shortcut into some tho which is dangerously hypocritical.

Hey CL, it is with a certain happiness that I encounter a post from an old friend, having avoided the blog for several fortnight.


What the heck is an epistemic virtue? Kind of like a girl that don't make a mess on the first date?

Clarity can be a beech, there ain't no doubt, and I suffer with you for the lack of ability to grab reality by the throat and force it into the walking bodies we encounter daily, who are casually referred to as "friends, family and associates". They really should come with a big old "sponge absorption diaphram", (SAD) that when we pour out our meaning, goes right through the SAD into their being, not bothered with all the delay and crap that the pre-frontal lobe (PFL) causes.

I came to recognize this years ago as SAD PIFFLE. or "sponge absorption diaphram pre-cognizant interference for feeling like evil" syndrome.

The only treatment that ever made me feel better was to learn that nobody ever really cares about what I think. Once that hurdle is passed, life gets to be a riotous caper. Not bad... if you enjoy being a creosoted barry like thingy... who along with anchovies are capable of ruining a pizza. (thats a joke)

Are you asking for perfect understanding on the part of others, or complaining that you can't attain perfect clarity of explanation?

I think -- from reading your post -- that you understand that none of us ever really understand ourselves. The odds thus drop to zero on the bet that we will ever understand "others". This being the case, we can try for all the clarity and sanity in the universe -- as long as we don't take that try too seriously.

Finally, of particular interest would be to talk about:

*How to relate to the world and oneself in a properly circumspect way;
*How to avoid the pointless anger and flirtation with hypocrisy evidenced in my original complaint.


Give yourself over completly. Be what you are without any shame or abashedness. Why avoid anger? Do you not realize that it is one of the greatest features and blessings of being human? It is pointless only if you let it eat you and your purley felt "anger" doesn't spur you to action. Show me a person who has no anger and I'll show you a fool.

Ok. Now I have gone and done just what you are on about! I hate the trite nature of this response to your thread. I can't figure out what you mean and having never been you, I feel bad that this is so trite.

How are you doing these days?

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Hey CL, it is with a certain happiness that I encounter a post from an old friend, having avoided the blog for several fortnight.


What the heck is an epistemic virtue? Kind of like a girl that don't make a mess on the first date?

Clarity can be a beech, there ain't no doubt, and I suffer with you for the lack of ability to grab reality by the th er been you, I feel bad that this is so trite.

How are you doing these days?

The only treatment that ever made me feel better was to learn that nobody ever really cares about what I think. … This being the case, we can try for all the clarity and sanity in the universe -- as long as we don't take that try too seriously.

LOL! (That’s a good “heartical” laughter there, at my own pretentiousness.) And, Ow! That peels it all away to the bone, man. What’s that bloody-looking stuff on the ground? I think it’s my own ego-flesh!

Seriou… I mean, sincerely, SVW, that is pure, pure zen. That is pure serenity. I know it was addressed to CL, but as the cliché goes, “Thanks, I needed that.”

Be well.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Hey CL, it is with a certain happiness that I encounter a post from an old friend, having avoided the blog for several fortnight.


What the heck is an epistemic virtue? Kind of like a girl that don't make a mess on the first date?

Clarity can be a beech, there ain't no doubt, and I suffer with you for the lack of ability to grab reality by the th er been you, I feel bad that this is so trite.

How are you doing these days?

It's good to see you around these parts, Mike 🙂.

A girl who doesn't make a mess on the first date is probably practicing the epistemic virtue of not overestimating her own point of view: in this case, she's not assuming that her taste in dudes that she dates is so good that every one is worthy of her messes without a few more occasions of less potentially loaded interpersonal give-and-take 😛.

I guess the epistemic virtues I'm talking about are simply good, clear habits of thought which, if used, make our conclusions, even if a little smaller than they'd otherwise be, pretty trustworthy.

I came to recognize this years ago as SAD PIFFLE. or "sponge absorption diaphram pre-cognizant interference for feeling like evil" syndrome.

I like the SAD PIFFLE idea a lot; I think it's closely tied to what I called "2." in my previous post, but SAD PIFFLE Syndrome is a way better name. A lot of what's interesting and difficult, to me, about being a person is getting around the SAD PIFFLE Syndrome. Unfortunate is the part of feeling like evil that comes after an attempt has been made to load up the SAD, when one feels sure that they've somehow not acted properly toward the other party, even if one's intentions were good. It's unfortunate that shouting "Dudes and ladies of humanity, my intentions toward you are good!", no matter how honestly, doesn't count as moral behaviour.

It seems that both of the suggestions you offer (recognising that nobody cares what one thinks and "giving yourself over completely" ) probably go a long way toward the problems I'm bringing up, which means they're not trite at all. In fact, I think I'm starting to learn that sometimes there are simple statements, which can even be expressed sometimes way more tritely than anything I've ever seen you write, which carry huge amounts of wisdom. Unfortunately, it's easy, at least in my experience, to get wrapped up in kind of abstract ways of thinking which can make these simply-expressed ideas easy to ignore, and then they are taught to one via some sort of suffering. They often offer a way out of that suffering (which is how one learns them, I guess), though.

Therefore I don't think your suggestions are trite at all. To apply them is hard, though, which is even more evidence that there's something to them. If we can put the irksome question, "What do other people think of what I think?" in perspective, then we're spared the painful need to shout to all the dudes and ladies of humanity that our intentions are good. If we "give ourselves over" in the way you say, then we're spared the (very real) suffering that too much second-guessing of oneself can bring. I'm essentially just repeating what you said, but it's kind of good to see the aforesaid small bits of wisdom right in front of my face.

I'm doing all right these days. Life has been instructive in a pretty wide variety of ways for the past couple of years, and one can't ask for much more.

How are you?

Peace,
Mark

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
Can someone provide a rough but meaningful breakdown of the world into different categories about which one might have an opinion, and, for each category, write some of the requirements one must meet (in terms of knowledge, prior contemplation, etc) in order to be entitled to an opinion about things in that category?

If I hear one more person failing ...[text shortened]... on RHP), I'm probably going to drink some Drano (note: I am not actually going to drink Drano).

There's only one requirement that should be met: Identify the axioms from which any given opinion unfolds.

Originally posted by vistesd
Good and helpful presentation. Just some brief comments:

[b]It's even possible that I'll be guilty of exactly the things I'm complaining about at some points in the post

Last night, I considered that I had done just that in a debate with Palynka… 🙁 Your point about presenting justifications as challenges arise is, I think, very valid for forums ...[text shortened]... n dialogue, we can try to gain some views from “elsewhere” than our habitual perspective.[/b]

I have a feeling that this thread will evolve into a pretty interesting morass of thinking out loud. While this thread might be extreme, I think that in a context like this forum, or even most other discussions, it's more to the point to let beliefs evolve in the face of argument. Unless some conclusive idea has been reached before the discussion starts (in cases where that's even possible), the approach you mention is probably the most honest and "properly circumspect" one.

Your post actually helps me to understand what motivated me to start this thread in the first place. I suppose the impression I have is that we experience a sort of default perspectivism, and practise many different methods of journeying from our own perspective. This is a bit of a minefield, since different contexts require vastly different methods of doing this. I think I started this thread out of frustration at perceiving a lack of effort in this regard on the part of some people around me -- this perception is of course probably a case of me making this error. It's also something which, for reasons SVW mentioned, should not bother one (certainly not enough to drink Drano!).

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
It's good to see you around these parts, Mike 🙂.

A girl who doesn't make a mess on the first date is probably practicing the epistemic virtue of not overestimating her own point of view: in this case, she's not assuming that her taste in dudes that she dates is so good that every one is worthy of her messes without a few more occasions of less pot ...[text shortened]... one can't ask for much more.

How are you?

Peace,
Mark

I'm doing ok. Just turned 61. Ain't near as smart as I used to be. Got my health. Got good family. My old dog Zabu is blind and has Alzheimers. She still frolics like a pup. But now, when she bounces, little "accidental toids" tend to pop out her butt. So we tend not to get her too happy in the house anymore.

We inherited a feral cat that looks like your cat... pure white. My grandson named her "Sky" because she has real pretty blue eyes. She won't let any of us touch her, but she is happy to live in the garage and accept the food and water every day. I bought her a plug in heating pad so that the sub-zero nights are not as brutal as they could be. Turned her into a damn couch potato. It's like she found ponce de leon's pool and she is not moving. Ever.

You do know that you are cursed, don't you? Intelligence. The key to surviving it until it goes away, (and it will) is to learn to use it and don't let it get to you. It ain't your fault!

Ahem. That was deep.

Originally posted by Palynka
There's only one requirement that should be met: Identify the axioms from which any given opinion unfolds.

Sure, but in most contexts, this is not possible to do exhaustively, either because there are too many or because the opinion has been formed from insufficient axioms.