All men are created equal. All opinions aren't. Sure, anybody can hold one, and is free to express it. But of what value is an "opinion" that's based on faulty, insubstantial, incomplete, irrelevant or nonexistent information? Answer: None. In Harper's Mark Slouka writes ("A Quibble") about what may be the most important subject of our lifetimes... in my opinion:
A generation ago the proof of our foolishness, held up to our faces, might still have elicited some redeeming twinge of shame -- no longer. [...]
...[We] we feel, as if truth were a matter of personal taste, or something to be divined in the human heart, like love. I was raised to be ashamed of my ignorance, and to try to do something about it if at all possible. I carry that burden to this day, and have successfully passed it on to my children. I don't believe I have the right to an opinion about something I know nothing about -- constitutional law, for example, or sailing -- a notion that puts me sadly out of step with a growing majority of my countrymen, many of whom may be unable to tell you anything at all about Islam, say, or socialism, or climate change, except that they hate it, are against it, don't believe in it. Worse still (or more amusing, depending on the day) are those who can tell you, and then offer up a stew of New Age blather, right-wing rant, and bloggers' speculation that's so divorced from actual, demonstrable fact, that's so not true, as the kids would say, that the mind goes numb with wonder. "Way I see it is," a man in the Tulsa Motel 6 swimming pool told me last summer, "if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us." [...]
Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly created equal. [...]
But there's more. Not only do we believe that opinion (our own) trumps expertise; we then go further and demand that expertise assume the position -- demand, that is, that those with actual knowledge supplicate themselves to the Believers, who don't need to know. The logic here, if that's the term, seems to rest on the a priori conviction that belief and knowledge are separate and unequal. Belief is higher, nobler; it comes from the heart; it feels like truth. There's a kind of Biblical grandeur to hit, and as God's chosen, we have an inherent right to it. Knowledge, on the other hand, is impersonal, easily manipulated, inherently suspect. Like the facts it's based on, it's slippery, insubstantial -- not solid like the things you believe.
The corollary to the axiom that belief beats knowledge, of course, is that ordinary folks shouldn't value the latter too highly, and should be suspicious of those who do. Which may explain our inherent discomfort with argument. We may not know much, but at least we know what we believe. Tricky elitists, on the other hand, are always going on. Confusing things. We don't trust them....
That part about the discomfort with (or distrust of) argument really hit home with me. It is rare that any discussion -- in politics, or in private -- today concerns itself with the substance of what was said rather than meaningless speculation about someone's motive for saying it. And yet, if it's true, or if it's false, it doesn't matter who said it or why. There's evidence, or there's lack of evidence, and the degree of certainty behind any conclusion rests on that alone -- but how many Opinionaters even make reference to externally verifiable facts when spouting an argument? It's not a crime to be uncertain, or to weigh evidence that supports or does not support a particular point of view. It's just worthless to base the certainty of an opinion on uncertainty. (I'm talking to you, Ben Stein...)
So, yeah, we are fortunate to live in a place and time where we have the legal rights to express opinions, no matter how flimsy or baseless or nasty. That doesn't mean we have the moral right to do so without being held accountable -- or subject to shame or ridicule...
(tip: Andrew Sullivan)
I partially blame the internet. Seriously. As great as it is for its ability to get genuine dissenting opinion out there and make viewpoints and ideas beyond the mainstream more accessible, the trade-off for the democratization process is that there's no natural filter for opinions, no peer-review, no editorial sieve for nonsense. Even mainstream media more and more turn to "iReporters" and whatnot.
I also blame the bizarre right-wing anti-intellectualism the country's been suffering through for some time, but that goes without saying.
I disagree with both of you completely (Jim and "Stephen"). While I can agree that it makes little sense to pass judgement on something one hasn't experienced, it's dangerous to suggest any opinion whatsoever should be silenced. It doesn't matter if someones opinions are "baseless" or "flimsy". People are entitled to have them regardless. Obviously it is best if people develop informed opinions on issues instead of innane assumptions, but the problem with wanting "filters" or "editorial sieves" for opinions is that what is considered baseless, flimsy, nasty or uninformed is a purely subjective matter.
What one person thinks is nonsensical may make perfect sense to another. Personally I think that anyone who believes that a man walked on water and cured the sick is out of their mind. However, who am I to say that they can't hold these beliefs? All of us hold plenty of beliefs and opinions that others take issue with. For you Jim, it's your opinion that The Dark Knight is a bad movie which most people would take issue with. While I completely disagree with your assessment, I would never want your opinion silenced.
There's no "right" or "wrong" with opinions. There are uninformed opinions, and while people are entitled to have them, they aren't worth worrying about. Logic and rational thought usually triumph. This is why many of the racist and sexist ideas of the past have vanished, and why religion itself is in decline.
What you two desire seems to be some 1984/Brave New World structured society. Frankly, that's probably the most dangerous and nasty opinion of all.
JE: I appreciate what you're saying, but please take another look at my opening and closing paragraphs. Nowhere do I advocate that any opinion should be silenced. Ignorance or mendacity, however, do not lend credence to an opinion. (We see this in politics all the time, where someone makes a statement that is manifestly untrue, as when Ted Stevens claimed he had not been found guilty of anything -- because he was appealing his conviction.) As I said in my first paragraph, expressing an unfounded opinion is every American's legal right -- but a lie is a lie (and one can be held legally accountable for lying in some contexts), and ignorance is ignorance (libel law counts "reckless disregard for the truth" as a form of "malice," the equivalent of lying), and a hunch is not the same thing as knowledge (whether it proves "correct" in some limited sense or not). Nobody has the right to expect a falsehood to go unchallenged by verifiable reality. Likewise, if I express the opinion that Elvis is alive, and I have no evidence on which to base that opinion, then if Elvis turns up not-dead somewhere, I can hardly claim to have been "right all along." My "opinion" was just an assertion of belief, not a valid opinion. If I claim that pigs are reptiles, that's not even an "opinion." It's a demonstrable misstatement. There's a difference, and to discount it is to render all opinions (and facts) meaningless: doublespeak.
Opinions are by definition subjective, but that doesn't mean they're not subject to objective scrutiny. What matters, as Slouka writes, is the validity of the argument. I can say "TDK" is "bad" in some ways and anyone else can say it's "good" in some ways. But both are worthless for the sake of argument unless they're based on something that exists independently of our opinions of it. Agreement or disagreement is not a form of argument unless we know precisely what we agree or disagree upon and why. (See Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch: "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition... Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.") We don't have to feel the same way about some aspect or, or moment in, a movie, but if we're to have any meaningful exchange we have to be able to confirm whether it's actually there, in the movie, or not. Otherwise we're not even talking about the same thing: I may think I dislike a shot that's not really in the movie, or a line that I didn't remember quite right and that was, in fact, spoken by another character. That may or may not change my "opinion," but I'd still be wrong about the particulars.
While the topic Mark Slouka has raised is an important one, his argument is undermined by commiting the same sin he is accusing the world at large of being party to. He follows the age-old method of categorizing his points within the categories of right/left wing, the former supposedly reserved for anti-intellectual nutjobs, the latter representing valid viewpoints. His implicit assumption that those who hold opposing viewpoints on socialism, Islam or manmade climate change can have no valid, demonstrable reasons for thinking so is a case in point.
His broader thesis that all opinions are held up to be equally valid in our society is equally baseless. There is a clear distinction to be made between a person's right to express an opinion and his ablility to defend it rationally in an argument. The former deals with human rights, the latter with personal integrity. As such, they represent two entirely unrelated arguments.
One more note about Stephen's comment: I don't think the internet is to blame. If anything, it has been instrumental in broadening the available pool of information on which to base opinions, informed or otherwise. People have held baseless assumptions for ages before the internet came around, naturally derived from vastly more limited sources of information.
JE: You write: "There is a clear distinction to be made between a person's right to express an opinion and his ability to defend it rationally in an argument. The former deals with human rights, the latter with personal integrity." You express the distinctions perfectly!
"You are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your INFORMED opinion." - Harlan Ellison
That's always been one of my favorite quotes. Yes, it's elitist and long live the elitists. No, it doesn't really mean a person shouldn't be _entitled_ to say whatever he or she wants, no matter how stupid, but the idea that I have to respect someone's opinion, simply because it is an opinion, is ridiculous.
This is a relevant point because there's such an ugly undercurrent (I don't think it's under anything actually) of anti-intellectualism in our country, one that has nothing to do with right/left wing, and one that promotes the related position of intellectual relativism.
It rears its head in many ways, but most relevant to a film discussion, or at least for me, is the almost knee-jerk "Who the hell do you think you are trying to tell me what movies are good or bad?" reaction I (and anyone who writes about film) deal with on a regular basis. It's usually a very angry reaction too, not just a casual one; many people are deeply offended that anyone dare make a judgment (that they don't agree with). I've always wondered if it's some kind of way to re-direct insecurity: "Hey, maybe I was wrong... no wait, who the hell does this guy think he is? Does he think he's better than me?"
One of the funniest send ups of relativism I can think of off-hand is in Lars von Trier's "Manderlay." In an attempt to include everyone's voice, they eventually wind up coming to a compromise vote on what time it is. So that everyone's opinion on the subject could be respected.
Agreed, and I'd add that I'm sure we've all read those op-ed pieces (and even books--from actual publishers!) that claim the growing ignorance, especially of young people, isn't a problem because while they may not know anything, they know how to find out the information they lack, right? That's a completely specious argument, because it assumes a question contains within it clues about where to look for its answer. E.g., if I asked you what's the capital of Latvia, and you didn't know, it would be easy to look it up. But how does one "look up" the answer to "What should the US's policy toward China be?" The question of Latvia's capital is an explicit test question, but in reality there are no explicit test questions. It is not at all clear from the question of, say, "Should the US prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and if so, how?" where one ought to go to look up the answer. One might be able to look up the opinions of others on the subject, but by what criteria could a person choose between them? In the absence of a broad knowledge of international politics, and the possession of many facts, one could not even begin to develop a coherent response. That's why ignorance, even of boring old facts, is indeed a problem.
I suggest that mocking the uneducated to make a point is fairly anti-intellectual.
"Way I see it is," a man in the Tulsa Motel 6 swimming pool told me last summer, "if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us." [...]
Or is ok because the man believes something that we reject?
I see this problem with a lot of religious people--and if that sounds like I'm anti-religion, I'm not; I help with communion at churct and even teach Sunday school. But I see a lot of people who approach their faith as if their beliefs can be proven, which I think is foolish, and perhaps couter-productive. See, I thought faith was belief DESPITE any evidence; that's why it's so hard to have faith, because empirical evidence for the existence of God is so hard, or impossible, to find. But knowing that this evidence does not exist does not preclude one from having faith--or at least, that's how I see it. I know many religious people who feel the need to justify their faith with what they claim is evidence--but it's circumstantial at best. And isn't the insistence on evidence totally against the concept of belief without evidence?
You guys may be interested in reading these two books below. In "The Age of Unreason", she takes irrational thought and ideas to task no matter what side of the political spectrum they come from, especially as this has been a political and social force in modern society.
I learned a lot from both and found them very enjoyable reading as well.
PS: sorry I don't know how to make those links work. = )
The Age of American Unreason (Vintage) by Susan Jacoby (Paperback - Feb 10, 2009)
Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby (Paperback - Dec 23, 2004)
As important, and timely, as this discussion is I find myself thinking: "Yeah, but what are you gonna do?" (As I sit on the couch drinking laundry detergent.) For instance, back when the Iraq invasion began my own *gut instinct* was telling me: "No way would a fascist like Hussein have anything to do with anarchists like al-Qaeda." But on the other hand.... "These guys are the experts in intelligence; they must know something." Likewise, as I drove around the state of Michigan over the last few years and saw the thousands and thousands of new gigantic mansions springing up in a state with zero population growth and one of the worst fiscal situations in the nation I thought: "This is crazy!" But on the other hand.... "I don't know anything about economics or real estate or banking."
As all this pertains to movies, of course, subjectivity is more important for forming an opinion, though maddening as a basis for argument. Why engage in a discussion at all if only to say over and over "Well I liked it, that's all!" At least pretty much all the "facts" are up there on the screen, though, and everybody has access. When you start comparing that to the "real" world where objectivity is paramount but so many facts, not to mention motives, are unavailable or deliberately obscured (even with the internet) then you can be left thinking...."What are you gonna do?" It's hard to trust the experts expertise if you don't trust their motives.
Oh, and I don't know about refrigerator repair but there are plenty of basketball experts who don't have a clue, too. Just watch ESPN now and then. So now we're into what makes an expert, because in basketball being fully immersed in it for decades doesn't automatically cut it.
So many people find it easy to agree or disagree, like this was Hollywood Squares or something. I usually end up saying "Yeah, but on the other hand...." If I were Prince, the ellipsis would be my glyph.
In my opinion--and this is, indeed, just an opinion--I would rather be constipated than have diarrhea. Yes, of course, constipation can be painful, but diarrhea is no walk in the park either--in fact, with the latter condition, a literal walk in the park may prove impossible unless you happen to like humiliating yourself by having a trickle of chocolate cheese dribbling down your leg as you run home, quietly muttering curse words to yourself and desperately praying to your Creator.
I can pretty much agree with everything you said in your response, Jim. I had the wrong idea. I thought your last paragraph was sarcastically suggesting that we are actually unfortunate to live in a society where we have the legal right to express our opinions. Especially when coupled Stephen's suggestion of filters and editing of opinions.
That being said, I still strongly disagree with Stephen's suggestions of censoring peoples views or opinions.
JE: No, I was absolutely in earnest. With notable legal limitations on libel, slander and incitement, I believe in unfettered free speech -- including speech I find hateful, damaging, ignorant, etc. But it's not enough for me to say I "disagree" with it, or that it's OK because it's somebody else's opinion. I think we as a society (and the press, as the best check on public speech) need to be more vigilant in our scrutiny of what passes for "information" -- and opinion and belief. Maybe because we have access to so MUCH information that has become more difficult to do.
As noted in Roger's recent post, most people have been indoctrinated in their beliefs, having received them from another indoctrinated person before.
Jim, you've hit one of my favorite topics on which to rant with this one. I'll restrain myself, though.
See, I work in education. Now, because everybody's been through school, everybody thinks that they are an expert on education (as if time spent in the doctor's office makes you an expert on medicine, as well). So wherever I go, whenever people find out I'm a teacher, I have to sit through their ill-informed, half-baked ideas on how to improve education. Never mind my ten years of experience, never mind my master's degree in my subject, never mind my awards or programs or even just the countless hours I've spent studying pedagogy, every half-wit presumes to teach me how to teach.
There's a kind of false assumption that when I make this argument, I'm really saying that "if you knew all that I knew, you would agree with me." That's not what I'm saying at all. I value the opinions of those who disagree with me, assuming they have studied and have some expertise in the subject at hand. For those who took Slouka to task for mocking the man at the motel, they assume that any disagreeable opinion would be mockable. As if he laughs equally at the Motel 6 man and Martin Luther King, Jr.
If you are not educated, your opinion is not valuable to me on topics requiring education. Sorry. I used to feel guilty for statements like this, worrying it made me elitist. I've since embraced my elitism. Some opinions are more valuable than others. If you think that Stephen King is a better writer than John Milton, or that Michael Bay is a better filmmaker than Akira Kurosawa, then that shows that your education is insufficient and you are just wrong. Go study and then come and talk to me. Until then your stupidity deserves to be mocked. I don't mind smart people that know they are smart, and I don't mind stupid people that know they have some things to learn, but stupid people who think they are smart are suffocating modern discourse in all areas outside of think tanks and universities and have made it absolutely insufferable to have any kind of reasoned discussion in most normal, social interactions. I have to shut my mouth and wait for the conversation to return to dull small talk, or risk hurting someone's feelings and creating awkward conflict in a polite social setting. And my wife gets really mad at me when that happens.
JE: Just to sympathize: In my younger days, I was known to get steamed at total strangers whose ignorant conversations I happen to hear in bars or restaurants. When I lived in LA, I once head this guy behind me totally misrepresent Abel Ferrara's "Bad Lieutenant" (then in first-run theaters) and I became furious -- not because I disagreed with his opinion (though I did) but because he was (deliberately?) misquoting what was in the movie.
"...[We] we feel, as if truth were a matter of personal taste.."
That strikes me as a straw man. Mark Slouka doesn't believe that. He thinks other people do. The guy at Motel 6, Ben Stein, George Bush, yes, there are a lot of proudly ignorant people out there. I'm not sure that it's any worse now than it was previously. The How I Was Raised bit doesn't presuade me otherwise. If your thesis is that empirical standards in debate have eroded, you might want to bring better facts than that.
Then again, I didn't read the whole article and here I am having an opinion, so I guess that supports his argument.
JE: The article is two and two-thirds pages long (three columns of type per page) and I quoted just a few paragraphs, intentionally leaving out most of his political stuff. Have ignorance-based opinions become more widespread in the last generation? I really don't know if there's a way to measure that -- but opinion polls showing Americans' beliefs about WMDs in Iraq, or Obama's religion, indicate that large percentages of the population can be fooled into believing just about anything, no matter what the available -- and easily provable -- facts. Are people just overwhelmed by "information" (even when much of it is blatant disinformation?). Jonah Lehrer, in his new book "How We Decide," writes about how MRIs may be less effective in the diagnosis and treatment of back pain than old-fashioned x-rays -- because they are so much more detailed that doctors may be "overwhelmed with information, and struggle to distinguish the significant from the irrelevant." You can read more about it here:
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2009/02/mri_and_back_pain.php
Out of all the great definitions for "opinion" at dictionary.com, this one is the best:
"a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge"
Somewhere along the line people forgot about the second half.
This article sums up how I feel.
Opinion vs. informed opinion.
Without being informed, you risk basing your belief system on lies.
http://www.bloggernews.net/118199
Radovan has it right. The problem today is that people's ideologies influences their facts, rather than vice versa.
Someone of a more "conservative" bent will trust something reported on Fox News more than another source. Someone of a more "liberal" bent will trust NPR. I put "conservative" and "liberal" in quotes, by the way, because no one has any clue what those terms mean anymore.
When no one can agree what the facts are, why is it a surprise that people's opinions are varying wildly? I know people who believe that GWB was behind 9/11 in an attempt to seize Iraqi oil fields. I know other people who believe that Saddam was aligned with Bin Laden and smuggled all of his WMDs out of Iraq, which is why we didn't find any. And do you know what, both of these groups have plenty of facts to back up their opinions. They just aren't facts that most of us would consider credible.
We have no more record of what's really happening. Newspapers are dying, every TV news program is discredited to about 50% of the country, and no one even pretends the internet is reliable. What, exactly, did people think would happen?
P.S. It wouldn't shock me if that gentleman at the Motel 6 were having a bit of fun with Mr. Slouka, and he just didn't realize it.
A pet peeve of mine is that the phrase "entitled to my opinion" is virtually meaningless, and almost always false when used in the context people use it in.
To be "entitled" is to have been granted a right. The notion that you have been granted a right to believe something is dangerously close to nonsense. Who could possibly stop you from believing something.
What people usually mean when they say this is that they have the right to express their opinion, or more often, express it without being challenged or criticized. In this sense, it's used more as an attempt to terminate a discussion than to state anything substantive. It's a coward's maneuver.
"Always remember, you might be wrong."
-- Terry Pratchett.
Oh, how much more pleasant the world would be if we all heeded Pratchett's advice.
In my view, a lot of the problem comes down to competitiveness. From the perspective of an intellectual bully, it doesn't matter whether you know what you're talking about as long as you speak loudly and with conviction. The point of argument is to win, right? Not to come to any common understanding. Not to learn anything. To win! And who cares if I have to lie or make stuff up to do it!
JE: It is kind of weird, isn't it? Who cares if you "win" an argument if it just means you had to get dumber in the process?
JE: ...large percentages of the population can be fooled into believing just about anything, no matter what the available -- and easily provable -- facts. Are people just overwhelmed by "information" (even when much of it is blatant disinformation?).
Yes, we have more information these days but, unfortunately, most of it is useless. The problem is compounded by the fact that we have move voices broadcasting this information and a large number of those voices repeat only the most scandalous information as a means to get themselves heard. With only one hour on the air per night, Walter Cronkite didn't have time to waste on meaningless speculation or gross misinformation. It's a different era today.
I'm also not so sure about being "overwhelmed" by information. Maybe being overwhelmed by the same message. I'd guess that most people still have a short list of sources. The nightly news. The newspaper. Maybe a magazine. A favorite website. The typical person doesn't seek out multiple resources for any given topic. If Bill O'Reily tells Joe Blow that Obama is a a Muslim, than Obama is a Muslim, goddammit. To that person, Bill O'Reily is a reliable source because he is the only source of political information. And, if they do seek out other sources of information, they will probably hear the same message over and over again, "proving" in their mind that the information is true.
JE: True. In a world where Bill O'Reilly can be perceived as an "expert" because he plays someone with strong opinions on TV, what is the meaning of the word?
I don't know the source, but I read a marvelous article a few years ago stating, essentially, "The age of the expert is over." And it does have a lot to do with the internet, including the Wikipedia phenomenon: if enough people say it is true, then it is.
Stephen Colbert should be mentioned. He popularized the terms "truthiness" and "wikiality" to characterize what he saw [from Republicans] as believing in things they know to be true, despite evidence to the contrary, and creating ones own reality in which to believe. (http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/08/7396.ars)
But be warned, dear reader. I am a university professor; a teacher and active researcher. This disqualifies my opinion on every subject, because apparently I don't live in "the real world" (which as far as I can tell in retail sales, but I'm not sure).
As a student of philosophy and epistemology, I have experienced countless conversations with individuals that inevitably leads to the phrase, "Well, that is simply true for you, but not true for me." Consternation ensues to say the least.
Yet a statement like this is to be expected. To find the origin of why people think is truth is essentially relative/subjective in these times would be an enormous undertaking. Postmodernism and its influences can be found in the media, music, television, films, art, education (especially in English and Sociology departments), etc., etc.
I maintain that truth is something to be discovered, not created. Empirical research and deductive logic can only do so much (in fact, Godel proved that second-order logic is necessarily incomplete). Nevertheless, if your position entails the truth of both p and ~p, I am going to have to respectively disagree with your argument.
JE: I wish I'd been able to put it that well. The popularized version of "Postmodernism" has had some catastrophic effects on intelligent discourse. Um, that's true for me, anyway!
The story about the man at the motel has nothing to do with his religion. More that he thought that Jesus Christ would have spoken English instead of say, Latin or Hebrew.
"And, if they do seek out other sources of information, they will probably hear the same message over and over again, "proving" in their mind that the information is true."
Haggie makes an important point, because it is something we all do naturally: seek out others who reaffirm our convictions. That was why I suggested the two books by Susan Jacoby. First she reaffirms many of my own convictions so it's nice and comfortable (irony intended). Second, she explains that it was not always so in American socio-political life. Believers used to come to hear lectures given by people supporting woman's lib and Darwin's theory of evolution in the 19th century as well as non religious people listening to liberal / socially motivated religious people.
In other words an honest debate between ideas not the base name calling or screaming over top of the other that we see today.
One of the moments I most remember from the last presidential campaign, in terms of honesty was the Fox News coverage of the Democratic convention. After Obama's acceptance speech, Patrick Buchanan who is anything but friendly to any form of liberalism was ecstatic over the caliber of Obama's speech. He kept talking so well of it that the other moderator's (probably expecting him to rip it to shreds) had to cut him off and go to commercial.
But there you go, Buchanan is old school. He believes his ideas are correct and argues for them. He doesn't feel the need to bully like we see with O'Reilly, Coultier and co.
The other side of the political spectrum is just as capable of shutting down discussion as the right. All "good" liberal politicians know how to use the words racist and sexist to stop a discussion.
All of these simplifications remind me of the main point of Solaris. We think we know the other but how well do we really know another person? In the movie it was focused on personal relations but the main idea can be applied to broader social situations.
When we call someone a conservative or liberal, what do we really understand of them? Intellectual honesty is the rarest of isotopes in the universe.
The idea of disclosure is what seems to be missing from most "intelligent" conversation. It's fine to be ignorant on any number of subjects. None of us know everything about everything. It's even find to hold opinions on things that we know little of. In fact, it seems nearly impossible not to hold opinions (even if we aren't fully aware of what they may be). We just need to be willing to recognize the limits of our knowledge. If I enter into a conversation about say, the reformation, then I need to be willing to admit that I've only taken one class on the subject, and so my knowledge only goes so far.
For me, admitting that I don't know about something can be one of the more liberating moments in a conversation. I sort of enjoy it when someone asks me about a movie, and I get to say, "Well, I've only seen it once, and that was about seven years ago, so I don't remember it very well."
Maybe some people are truly embarrassed of their ignorance, but too proud to admit it, and too lazy to change it.
Let's be honest here. In one article supposedly trumpeting factual integrity and logical arguments, the author takes pot shots at those who have oppositions to climate change, socialism, or Islam. "Right-wing" talk is attacked. Those who want an emphasis on the English language in the States, presumably in the classroom or as a national language, are given the straw man of being Bible-thumpers.
I'm not saying any of these positions nor their inverse are correct. What I'm saying is that it's hypocritical to ask for logical, rational debate and then torpedo any opposing positions. This is certainly a practice that Jim partakes in his reviews and criticism also. Yeah, yeah... everything's political. I get it. It's poisoning the well.
The thesis of the argument is dead-on. We should have logical, rational debate. About anything. Religion, economics, culture. But this article isn't offering any facts. It's hypocritical in doing exactly the hatchet-job on these subjects that it is decrying.
JE: I think you're confusing the form of argument he's advocating with specific positions he's using as examples. I find that it's perfectly acceptable to most people to build an argument based on logic and observable facts... as long as you don't reach a conclusion with which they disagree. The article is arguing against specific kinds of non-fact-based reasoning -- for example, one based on the notion that Jesus spoke English. It's certainly possible to have informed debates about aspects of all the subjects you mention, don't you think?
Matthew,
You seem to think just because you may be right about something that it is appropriate to be nasty and condescending by mocking them. It is simply inexecusable for someone as "smart" as yourself to take joy in someone else's ignorance.
You want something mockable? See below. You make an assumption that is not only false but does not even follow in any way from what I said.
"For those who took Slouka to task for mocking the man at the motel, they assume that any disagreeable opinion would be mockable. As if he laughs equally at the Motel 6 man and Martin Luther King, Jr."
If I were to guess, MLK Jr. would probably find making fun of uneducated people to simply be wrong. Or is that your method of teaching?
Voltaire quote #1 (I guess I'm in German mode tonight): "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire quote #2, written in reply to a detractor: "Sir, I am in the smallest room in my house. I have your letter before me. Soon it will be behind me."
Is there a contradiction here? Or did Voltaire, elite-like, prefer to debate with informed individuals?
There's a guy at my work, who is, quite frankly a redneck. Myself, I like to think that I'm one of the infamous (in Canada) social-liberal, fiscal-conservative bunch (infamous because almost every one of our politicians says that's what he/she is, but frankly...not so much).
This guy is always coming up to me and telling me what "they" are saying, and it's usually the worst of the nonsense dreamed up by the far right. And I'm always challenging him on who "they" are and what are their sources. Sometimes I can refute those sources, when the subject is something I know a bit about. When it's something I know nothing about, I usually limit my comments to "I disagree, but I don't know enough to explain why."
The thing that bugs me, though, is this (and it occurred to me about half way through the replies to Roger Ebert's review of "Expelled") - no one, absolutely no one (not even me) ever wrote anything along the lines of "y'know, you're right. I never thought of that. I'll have to think about this."
Well, to be fair, Roger did a few times. I like to think that my position on spirituality has gone through many evolutionary stages, and I've arrived where I am through much thought and consideration, and so I like to think the position is defensible.
But I never saw any such indication from others posting comment. They used facts like a drunk uses a lamppost - for support rather than illumination.
JE: One of the most enlightening debates I ever had was just after Columbine when I had a long series of comment exchanges with a guy who used the name "Second Amendment Joe" (or something like it) at the Denver Post web site. He was saying that "they" would blame everything on the weapons rather than the kids who used them. I really wanted to understand where he was coming from, so I just kept asking questions, trying to stay as focused as possible. What did he believe the constitution guaranteed, and why? Were there any limits that could be placed on "the right to keep and bear arms" that could not have been envisioned at the time the second amendment was written? (The right of individuals to possess nuclear weapons?) At first he ferociously attacked me for the assumptions he assumed were behind my questions. But I eventually convinced him I was really interested in his answers. Because I was. After two or three days of back-and-forth I had a lot more respect for him (he said the same of me) and it changed the way I look at the whole issue of gun ownership. It's hard to have those kinds of exchanges, though, because (see some of the "TDK" threads!) once certain people know what your position is, they simply attack or dismiss you for having it, without addressing your arguments or presenting arguments of their own. It's not about "winning" or "convincing" the other person to concede, it's a matter of presenting a coherent explanation of your own point of view, based on the available evidence. That's hard to do.
Sorry to intrude off-topic, but in googling the exact wording of Voltaire quote #2, I stumbled on a page at
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/002514.html
It dates from 2003 and quotes an ABC News story that says Thousands of marines have been given a pamphlet called “A Christian’s Duty,” a mini prayer book which includes a tear-out section to be mailed to the White House pledging [that] the soldier who sends it in has been praying for Bush.
“I have committed to pray for you, your family, your staff and our troops during this time of uncertainty and tumult. May God’s peace be your guide,” says the pledge, according to a journalist embedded with coalition forces.
The title of the blog entry is "As usual, it's all about him", and some of the comments are priceless.
I didn't know about this, but frankly I'm not really surprised. Just terribly, terribly saddened.
"I find that it's perfectly acceptable to most people to build an argument based on logic and observable facts... as long as you don't reach a conclusion with which they disagree."
That, unfortunately, is exactly how I gamble.
JE: Red or black? Discuss.
As frustrating as it may be for a teaching expert or a film expert to come across people who assume that their experience in being taught or in watching a given movie makes their opinion on the matter as weighty as that of the expert, I have to think the ultimate example of this concerns the human mind. Every one of us owns one, every one of us has a different one from everybody else, and we are so utterly immersed in the workings of our own mind every second that we are alive that we presume to understand it perfectly. However, there are a number of experts (Daniel Dennett comes to mind; watch his TED Conference video) who claim that we do not; far from it. Believing that you know who you are is about the strongest opinion anyone can possibly hold, and yet here are experts claiming that they understand you better, and have the evidence to prove it. This, I think, is the ultimate test of how much one values informed opinion over regular opinion; are you open to the idea that the mind is capable of scientific inquiry, and that the people who undertake such inquiry really can override your subjective experience of consciousness with their expertise on the matter? If we can get people to be receptive to this idea, of all ideas, then maybe there is hope in tackling the disturbing dismissal of expertise in other facets of life.
JE: One of the most enlightening debates I ever had was just after Columbine when I had a long series of comment exchanges with a guy who used the name "Second Amendment Joe" (or something like it) at the Denver Post web site. He was saying that "they" would blame everything on the weapons rather than the kids who used them. I really wanted to understand where he was coming from, so I just kept asking questions, trying to stay as focused as possible. What did he believe the constitution guaranteed, and why? Were there any limits that could be placed on "the right to keep and bear arms" that could not have been envisioned at the time the second amendment was written? (The right of individuals to possess nuclear weapons?) At first he ferociously attacked me for the assumptions he assumed were behind my questions. But I eventually convinced him I was really interested in his answers. Because I was. After two or three days of back-and-forth I had a lot more respect for him (he said the same of me) and it changed the way I look at the whole issue of gun ownership. It's hard to have those kinds of exchanges, though, because (see some of the "TDK" threads!) once certain people know what your position is, they simply attack or dismiss you for having it, without addressing your arguments or presenting arguments of their own. It's not about "winning" or "convincing" the other person to concede, it's a matter of presenting a coherent explanation of your own point of view, based on the available evidence. That's hard to do.
Yeah, you're right. I love a good debate, but most people don't bother with debate. Metaphorically, it isn't the "thrust and riposte" of debate or even the Marquess of Queensbury rules - it's just street fighting. Win at all costs.
John Raulston Saul has a lot to say about this in "Voltaire's Bastards" - which is a tough slog because he's an academic and he wrote like an academic. His later books are more accessible.
He identifies the technocratic separation of "rationalism" from "ethics". The modern technocrat pays lip service to Voltaire's thesis that reason should be the guide to public policy (instead of, as it was in Voltaire's day, the whim of hereditary monarchs), but they've lost sight of Voltaire's contention that reason should be guided or informed by ethics.
And the result is the amoral rationality that produces things like Auschwitz, New Orleans, Iraq, Siberia and a host of other examples on a grand scale, and Columbine, University of Virginia, École Polytechnique and so on on a smaller scale. Rationality devoid of ethics.
In Saul's view, one result of this process of "de-contenting" ethics from rationality has been a loss of focus of the purpose of debate. It is no longer a process of arriving at truth or at least consensus. Instead it is a process of trying to dominate the debate and imposing your point of view. To that end, anything that allows you to accomplish that is fair game - lying, misrepresenting the other person's position, rhetorical tricks that are ethically questionable (at best), etc. All the things that good ole Rush Limbaugh and AC specialize in (not that they're alone in this, they're just the most egregious practitioners that I'm aware of).
Voltaire's Bastards is worth reading. I had to read it twice before I could perceive the structure of the book; if you choose to read it, I hope you're better at it than I am because as I said it's a tough slog and it's a rather large book...
Cheers!
Eric,
I didn't say the uneducated should be mocked, but that those who are both arrogant and uneducated should be mocked. Most of my students, like most people, understand that they have something to learn. The rare student who loudly and proudly proclaims "Shakespeare sucks!" doesn't deserve to be mocked (you're right about that), but that student should know the difference between the unqualified opinions of someone who hasn't yet graduated from high school versus the opinions of major Western scholars for the past 400 years. When they are adults, though, the gloves should come off.
Funny how you misrepresented my statement so that you could leap to an implied criticism of my teaching. Who's making assumptions now?
Always black or tails. For some reason they have struck me as the underdogs.
Something about the internet (sorry to digress), but it's National Day of Mourning down here for the bushfire victims (I am in Melbourne,) and the support coming from those we would not have known only 10 years ago warms the heart.
JE: It's been the top of the news everywhere in the states. I used to live in Los Angeles where there are terrible brush fires every year, but I've never seen anything like this. My heart goes out to all those who have been affected by this catastrophe...
Following up...
I'm sorry, but I think anyone who thinks the internet and increased democratization of mass communications hasn't contributed to the idealization of "opinions" is fooling themselves. Because of the internet, any crazy idea is put out there for others to see, and the people who believe it form communities and reinforce each others' opinions. A huge part of what we think and how we act is determined by what others' show us is acceptable. If we find a group, however small, of people who reinforce our crazy ideas they seem less crazy.
This can be a good thing, as it means more ideas get a shake. But it also means millions of bad ideas (for example: Autism is caused by vaccines; no plane crashed into the Pentagon; anything anyone who voted for Ron Paul says) become socially acceptable. The Overton Window gets opened wider every day.
Sorry, I haven't the time to wade through this mountain of comments, so I don't know if anyone's mentioned Harlan Ellison's theory -- People aren't entitled to their opinion; people are entitled to their informed opinion.
In movie fandom -- as in any fandom -- there's the barrier of 'The World Began With Me' conceit which colors perception. As a quick example, this is evident when someone who came of age in the 1960s regards Sean Connery as THE James Bond, while someone who came of age a decade later holds the same affection for Roger Moore.
If their walls are high and firm, they'd never bend to consider Timothy Dalton as more in keeping with Fleming's character.
Just as someone who came of age watching Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes would be loath to admit Jeremy Brett being closer to Conan Doyle's Holmes.
Such myopia encases our anarchic blogosphere. (It becomes especially funny when we drag our skewed politics and theology into the fray.) In the end, we're all just talking heads.
Ah, but here's the rub: if I'm told by a lover of chocolate ice cream that my preference for strawberry ice cream is ignorant, or ill-informed, does that mean I have no right to that opinion? I confess, I lack much objective understanding of the human brain, in particular how it interprets the electrical impulses it receives from our taste buds. Perhaps there is evidence that the neural receptors triggered by chocolate are more pleasureful than those triggered by strawberries; perhaps that counts as objective evidence that chocolate tastes better; perhaps my ignorance of the intricacies of the human sense of taste renders me unfit to make an opinion on the subject. If asked why I prefer strawberry, I can provide no evidence, only biases. Under any reasonable standard, then, I have no right to that opinion.
So.
If one looks at such a statement as ridiculous (as I do), but believes there is a difference between that and, say, our natural aghast reaction to someone who thinks English is good enough for us because it was "good enough for Jesus," then where's the line between the two? At what point to objective facts become prevalent enough to act as a divisor between good opinions and bad ones? The point where someone says that "300" is a better movie than "Citizen Kane"?
This is why the supporters of, say, evolution don't try to make these arrogant, sweeping arguments. The evolution/creation debate, where it really matters, centers around what should be taught in our science classes. The debate does not center on separating "good" opinions from "bad" ones, rather it is separating scientific observations from unscientific ones. We can do this, because science is a well-defined process, whereupon observations are noted, hypotheses are formed, and experiments are devised and performed with the purpose of testing that hypothesis. On those criteria, we note that evolution is science and creationism is not. There is no room for opinion in that debate, because the criteria separating "scientific" and "unscientific" are far more well developed than those separating "good" and "bad".
Continuing the example, the reason that I think evolution is a better idea than creationism is because it is scientific, and I have a natural bias in favor of scientific ideas. I do not feel the need to convince those that believe otherwise that their beliefs are worse than mine; I have no truly objective basis upon which to base such an argument.
What Mr. Slouka appears to be saying is "the world would be a much nicer place if everyone just disagreed with me."
JE: Good points. Sometimes we confuse "taste," "opinion" and "belief." Their meanings overlap in some contexts but not in others. That's where the arguments get slippery, I think. On the other hand, if Jesus of Nazareth lived about 2000 years ago in the Middle East somewhere, we can be certain as certain can be that he did not speak English because it developed from a different root about five centuries later in a different region of the world. But that isn't what the guy at the Motel 6 was thinking: He was just thinking that because he'd read a Bible printed in English that it must have been written that way. Is that an "opinion"? A taste preference? A belief? Not really. It's a falsehood -- even though he wasn't intentionally lying. (Can I "believe" that my dog is made entirely of cheddar cheese? I suppose you could say that's a "belief." And I have the right to express it if I wish. But nobody else is obligated to treat it with anything less than incredulity, or to regard me as knowledgeable, sensible, or even sane for clinging to it in the face of available evidence.)
As you say, it's kind of silly to argue Creationism vs. Evolution -- because the former is explicitly an origin story and the other is a process that doesn't pretend to offer an origin story (no matter what the folks behind the Peanut Butter Experiment may claim). And because the latter is science and the former (including the version that goes by "Intelligent Design") is not built upon the methodology we call science. It's comparing apples (sorry) and oranges, chocolate and strawberry.
Preference (as strong as love or hate) can be expressed in terms of taste, opinion, belief (or movie criticism); but empiricism and analysis always exist on an independent level as well. You may love chocolate and passionately prefer it to strawberry, but they are two different flavors and you can't grow chocolates from a strawberry plant. The objective (chemical, molecular) properties of the two remain distinct, no matter what your taste or opinion or belief about them. Meanwhile, I'd love to put forth an argument about the relative merits of "300" and "Citizen Kane" -- but I can't argue on behalf of the latter's use of color and anamorphic widescreen compositions, because it's in black and white and Academy ratio. It would be a meaningless, one-sided argument anyway. The only evidence and analysis I can offer to support my evaluation is from "Kane." I haven't seen "300." Is it in English?
I agree with John L's comment above -- Slouka may have been hoodwinked by the guy at the Motel 6. The "English was good enough for Jesus" line is an old chestnut that goes back a ways. See the Language Log for details: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003084.html
Lots of interesting stuff to chew on here. A couple of thoughts come to my mind:
1) I think the internet has amplified pre-existing conditions in regards to opinions. There was no internet out there while the Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy theories were mapped out. Or the UFO cover-up theories. Or any number of other arguable theories which got spread along quite nicely without the help of the internet.
2) As further evidence of same, I remember a friend of mine, teaching English Comp 101 back around 1988, telling me that her students would ignore her advice because "that's just your opinion." I'm no expert in this area, but I suspect parenting techniques begun in the 70s led to the democratization of opinions and the dismissal of expertise.
3) On the other hand, there were no-nothings in the 19th Century, and dismissals of "eggheads" in the 1920s, and a pretty lively series of insults against High Art as far back as there has been such a thing.
4) Meanwhile, the concept of truth, outside of a highly objective series of facts such as 'English wasn't spoken 2000 years ago" or "The population of Boise, IDAHO is X" or "Dark Knight fans can't handle disagreement well," is rather unstable. Particularly in regards to art. I like to look at disagreement about artistic experiences - music, films, books, painting - as akin to the blind men touching the elephant in different places. You might be touching the tail of a film while a fanboy is touching the trunk, and as such, you're talking at cross-purposes, and neither one of you will ever reach a point of agreement.
5) Thus, a recognition that subjective experiences of art do not have to be mutually exclusive, is important to keep in mind if we want to learn anything at all from each other.
6) None of which is meant to imply that there is any way in God's green earth that 300 could possibly be better than Citizen Kane.
*None of which is meant to imply that there is any way in God's green earth that 300 could possibly be better than Citizen Kane.*
Just give Slavoj Zizek a few hours to come up with a tortured pseudo-intellectual explanation as to why 300 is better than Citizen Kane, and then your eyes will be opened.
This debate has been going on longer than we suspect. I was listening to Beethoven's First on CD in the car today, and I suddenly remembered a story I heard on CBC radio.
It seems that one evening, there was a concert of Beethoven music. The program included one of his concerti, as well as the 6th Symphony and the "World Premiere" of his 7th and 8th Symphonies (I may have some of these details wrong).
Leading up to this, famous composers were fighting to be able to play in the orchestra that would perform on this particular evening. People would fight for the right to attend.
After the evening was over, some wag decided to beard Beethoven, and told him that it seemed like the applause for the 7th Symphony was not as loud as the applause for the 6th or 8th.
Beethoven is reputed to have snarled in reply, "That's because it's better."
JE:
[I hope that you continue to monitor comments on older posts, because this is a hugely important topic that is one of my main areas of focus. I was pleasantly surprised to find your post on it... I used to have email conversations with Roger prior to the Web, so interesting to find you here.]
There are several major points that impact on this topic, but - as pointed out many times in the comments - real discussion is lengthy, so I'll start with the big one and leave the rest to later.
This is one of the "secrets of the universe" (even though there is nothing being hidden):
Those who don't know the answer to a question, also do not know which proposed answer is correct.
People who are asking a question, do not know the correct answer, otherwise they would not need to ask. So, they have no real way of recognizing which is the correct answer.
Since human society has been so specialized for 10,000 years, individuals have been dependent on others' correct answers, but have no way to recognize them, until it is too late.
The Conventional Wisdom of society is that there is some sort of way to recognize a correct answer, but that is a complete myth (as Madoff's victims now understand).
** Perhaps the biggest characteristic of human society is the DENIAL of this situation.
This also applies to the media, who thereby provide vast amounts of information that they cannot verify, since they cannot have expertise in all those areas. Since the entire media is depedent on this fraud, none of them can expose it (or even recognize it) without losing their livelihood. It would undercut the entire concept of the media, who are the only ones who could deliver the message, and so such an action is avoided by rationalizations like "well we do some good, so it is okay in balance".
The more recent media mental technique to avoid this conflict entirely is to "present both sides". This allows the media to avoid any assessment of truth, and allows them to continue in the communication business.
This relegates those issues to the condition of being a sports conflict, causing viewers to take sides, and thus truth is now determined by group affiliation, rather than facts. Thus we affilate ourselves with a group's characterization of the situation. Since those groups are aimed at acquiring influence and power, their characterizations of the situation are entirely formulated to appeal, rather than to be true. The more appealing characterization wins power.
( By the way, this explains the phenomenon where those advocating politically incorrect opinions are frequently shouted down on college campuses by people who otherwise profess to favor free speech. It is subconsciously and emotionally a sporting event, not research into the truth of the matter. )
Think about it - if you walk through town on a sunny day and ask everyone you pass "Is it sunny or cloudy?", they will all say "sunny" (or else think you are crazy).
So, there is something about an issue where people are split roughly 50-50 that automatically and MATHEMATICALLY seem ARBITRARY. Thus being "conservative" or "liberal" seems to be a lifestyle choice rather than something that involves facts...
I was emailling with my wife the other day, talking about our daughter. Our daughter has fallen victim to what Robert Heinlein called "democratic fallacy" - the belief that her opinion is just as good as anyone else's.
The problem is that my little girl is very bright, and knows it. However, she doesn't have the experience to realize the good judgment that comes with experience. What she has little of, she esteems little (to borrow a phrase).
And I think this might be the crux of why fanboys (for example) feel justified in dismissing the judgments of critics, and believing (e.g.) that ROTF is the best movie of all time. They don't have the experiential background to see how poorly done it is. They lack the references to know what is actually good.