A take on intellectual honesty (The Drum)

[Logic please]

Some aspects of this article at abc.net.au, came to mind in light of some of our recent FI guests. They might be worth considering more generally than that, though :

Intellectual honesty and an open mind
Tammi Jonas | 6 January 2012

You say a thing. I disagree with the thing you said and I tell you so. You say:

1. Everybody is entitled to their opinion.
2. Why are you so difficult?
3. nothing, and look surly or distraught.

The first example is a 'non-answer', designed to stifle discussion and debate. I may have information you don't have about the topic. Telling me 'it's just my opinion' rather than engaging with the opinion or assertion of 'fact' achieves nothing except to silence me. Your original statement remains unchallenged and unchallengeable, because anything anyone might say is 'just opinion'. This isn't true. Not everything is opinion.

...
The second response (that I am being difficult) is also a non-answer, but a more aggressive one in which I am positioned as an unreasonable person who won't let a person speak freely. This answer, while serving the same purpose as the first (to silence me), is, I would argue, pernicious. It allows statements that commit symbolic violence to go forth and prosper.
...
I will tell you I disagree with you when you say things that maintain hegemonic structures such as white privilege. Calling me difficult when I tell you I disagree is tantamount to saying you don't care that you are privileged, and in fact you bloody well like it this way, so bugger the global south/Indigenous Australians/asylum seekers/women… Why don't you try an honest approach and just admit it - the status quo benefits you - rather than obfuscating the point by trying to dismiss me as difficult?
But wait, you meant no harm? That is why I will disagree with you respectfully. People often reproduce stereotypes while meaning no harm. Wouldn't you like to know that's what you did though, so you don't do it again?...
The third one, silence (often surly silence), is spectacularly disingenuous - you get to be a victim of this difficult contrarian. Make sure your eyes look pained in your silence so everyone around you can see that I'm picking on you. In fact, I'm the elitist one, sharing what I've learned as a researcher, 'me and my f**king education'...
...
Rather than being so wounded when I tell you I disagree with you and why, try something different. Try saying, 'Really? Tell me more. I'm interested'. There should be nothing threatening about learning something new, something that may even change your mind. It's okay to change your mind. I'll change mine if you provide compelling evidence for me to do so.

Looking at some of the article comments, it hasn't been received with universal acclaim.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I'd go as far as to say the second one is an ad hominem attack. It's attempting to use some personality characteristic to attempt to discredit the other person, and potentially hijack the topic.

[dilbadoon]

The first example is a 'non-answer', designed to stifle discussion and debate.

Bullshit. I yearn to live in a world where people can freely give that "non answer" Stifle discussion and debate? What causes that is people FORCING their opinions onto others. Having that opinion in the first place? Never hurt anyone.

[Seamus]

I yearn to live in a world where people can freely give that "non answer"

I already do.


In MY opinion,there ARE actually some people with whom one simply cannot have a rational discussion.EG dogmatic apologists of all kinds. So I don't bother.In such cases,silence,laughter or violence are probably the most appropriate responses.

I did a bit of debating in high school.Took me about 5 minutes to work out debating is usually a form of mental masturbation.I learned not to conflate winning an argument with being right as a principle. I DID learn from debating by only taking the position opposite to my convictions. I often won.

If you could reason with religious people there wouldn't be any ( Greg House)

[IVPITER]

Originally Posted by dilbadoon

Bullshit. I yearn to live in a world where people can freely give that "non answer" Stifle discussion and debate? What causes that is people FORCING their opinions onto others. Having that opinion in the first place? Never hurt anyone.

I thought what she said was valid in relation to debating. And I don't think though she was arguing that people aren't entitled to their own opinion or should not be allowed to give that response. I have had something similar given to me in a discussion, “I believe in what I believe, and you believe in what you believe.” Both responses state the bleeding obvious and avoid dealing with what the opponent actually said.

And I also agree, with Tammi Jonas, that responding with “every one is entitled to their opinion” to a fact, like the earth is four and a half billion years, is a non-answer and tries to turn a fact into opinion. That sort of response is more suitable in a discussion on the which ice-cream flavour is superior.

I disagree that opinions never hurt anyone. Opinions influence peoples behaviour and it is easy to think of opinions that can and have hurt people.

[owheelj]

She means it's a "non-answer" as in it doesn't answer the concerns she has raised, and so thus ends (stifles) discussion. All you can do in response is repeat your "opinion" again.

[dilbadoon]

Originally Posted by IVPITER

I thought what she said was valid in relation to debating. And I don't think though she was arguing that people aren't entitled to their own opinion or should not be allowed to give that response. I have had something similar given to me in a discussion, “I believe in what I believe, and you believe in what you believe.” Both responses state the bleeding obvious and avoid dealing with what the opponent actually said.

And I also agree, with Tammi Jonas, that responding with “every one is entitled to their opinion” to a fact, like the earth is four and a half billion years, is a non-answer and tries to turn a fact into opinion. That sort of response is more suitable in a discussion on the which ice-cream flavour is superior.

I disagree that opinions never hurt anyone. Opinions influence peoples behaviour and it is easy to think of opinions that can and have hurt people.

Yah, chalk it up to 2am after a night on the town = not good posting . Of course I took it completely out of context of what the article is saying, while I agree with what I said (huh?) in general, as far as forming an argument "it's my opinion" is a complete cop out.

[wearestardust]

Originally Posted by owheelj

She means it's a "non-answer" as in it doesn't answer the concerns she has raised, and so thus ends (stifles) discussion. All you can do in response is repeat your "opinion" again.

I think this is the point: saying "I'm entitled to my opinion" tends not to be a way of saying "I don't want to discuss this" but "my view is just as valid as yours, just because".

It strikes me that when this is deployed it is often implying a kind of special pleading. No reasonable person would hold to an opinion on day to day matters just on the basis that "I'm entitled to my opinion". For example, whether it is Dustin Hoffman or Al Pacino in a movie, or what the time is, or any other matters like that. "I'm entitled to my opinion" also doesn't get used on technical or expert, but non-ideologically loaded, matters. People tend not, on being told how a piece of complicated electronics or machinery works, to insist on maintaining their opinion in the face of an expert view. Even if one were to disagree, one would find out more and form a view on the facts.

However, when it comes to things like climate change, or god, or gender relations, and such things, opinion is somehow held to obviate reasoned discussion.

[dilbadoon]

I guess it comes down to, fair enough that is your opinion, but the interest is in why is it your opinion?

[owheelj]

It's even probably an attempt to say; "don't question my opinion," which is often the response of those without good justification for their views. If they could justify their views well, they wouldn't need to try to stifle discussion of them. Of course some people really do just like to avoid discussion that involves disagreement, and sometimes the situation can make it inappropriate.