“The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” – Aristotle
Sadly, the postmodern era has given rise to a dangerous idea. Dangerous in the sense that it is in idea in disguise. A wolf in sheep’s clothing, waiting to pounce. It is, you realise after a few glances, a despicable notion. It is one that can have quite terrifying implications and yet dresses itself as a sweetly innocent and fair concept, drawn up with bows ribbons. Some might even be blind enough to praise it as a virtue in these modern times. I am speaking, of course, of the idea that everyone’s opinion holds equal merit.
This idea is appealing to the postmodernist and can be preached from that perspective with a kind of justice, but that justice is misplaced. In practicality the idea breaks down instantly. Like most examples of bad thinking, this one derives from a common misconception. People usually make some sort of salient connection between an individual’s opinions and their character value. The perception is that if someone makes commentary on a person’s opinion or beliefs, they are also making a commentary about that person themselves. This is not the case. Opinions are transient and can be altered by many factors, including the acquisition of knowledge. Using the learning process, opinions can gradually be proven fact (or at least, as close to a fact as humanly possible). In fact, if our opinions didn’t change during the course of our lifetime, or even daily lives for that matter, living and progressing in linear time would be made impossible.
Opinions are not facts. Wittgenstein defined facts as states of affairs within the model of reality. Facts are truths about our picture of the world. Facts are that which is. Opinions are can be described as subjective statements made about those facts. There is a great distinction. We as humans also have an odd tendency, due to our powers of imagination, to use opinions as a substitute for facts where knowledge of the said fact is nil. For example, when people encounter a phenomena that they cannot logically explain they tend to dub it a “paranormal” experience. However, terms like “supernatural” and “paranormal”are, in themselves, paradoxes.
Think about it for a second. Words and ideas like “reality” and “nature” are directly describing what is true about existence. Something either does or does not exist in reality. Reality means what truly is. Therefore, to introduce a term like “supernatural” means nothing, because once you have discovered a fact about the natural world then it is obviously part of that reality. Nothing can exist outside of reality because reality is, by definition, everything that exists. The purpose of science is to discover that which is real so that we might have a better understanding of the way in which existence works. If some tangible evidence was discovered tomorrow that ghosts and goblins existed then they would become part of reality and could be explained by scientific means. It would be accepted that they have always been part of reality. However, since we can’t seem to find any real evidence for this kind of phenomena, besides personal and subjective testimony, they remain consigned to the category of “non-existent” and will do so until proven otherwise.
Likewise, if far in the future we were to discover that some higher dimensional space existed outside of our own universe (which, by the way is right on the frontier of contemporary physics) it would then become part of our understanding of reality and would be accepted as a natural part of existence. Until then, theories such as Superstring Theory will remain within the realms of scientific opinion rather than fact. I hardly need to mention that up until incredibly recently in human history, we were ready to believe that the Earth was a flat surface and created laws prohibiting sea captains to sail their crews too far into the horizon under threat of death, for the fear of plumeting off its edge. However, with the benefits of modern science we can now casually verify, in everyday conversation, with incredible conviction and accuracy that the Earth is, along with most other heavenly bodies, a globe. Not to mention the fact that a select number of us have actually seen the globe from outside of Earth’s atmosphere and photographed it.
This is a perfect example of how learning from a massive convergence of evidence can help to substantiate the truth of our world model. This is the only aim of science. It is not, as “alternative thinkers” would have you believe, to sit in its rocking chair, smoking its pipe blissfully whilst sarcastically making a mockery of every piece of black magic, voodoo hogwash that scuttles across its highly vacuumed Persian rug.
The comedian Dara O’Briain phrased this next paragraph better than I ever could, but I will try all the same. Pedallers of “hollistic”, “homeopathic”, or “nutritionalistic” remedies would screech to the hilltops the value of herbal remedies and their healing properties. Scientists would counter that they spend a great deal of time scouring the world for those herbal and naturally occurring chemical compounds that work and turning them into what we know as medicine. During that process they also spend a great deal of time testing and double testing things that might work so that there can be no real argument.
It is with these maxims and this frame of thought in place that we must pass judgment on individual’s opinions. It is, quite frankly, ridiculous that the opinionated belief systems that drive multimillion dollar industries such as homeopathy or psychic-mediumship run unchecked whilst science with its massive convergence of evidence and research remain criticised. People even choose to believe those blatant falsehoods over what is real, substantiated and proven. This is proven and propagated time and time again by media corporations and our government who shout that we must not disagree with our fellow’s opinion or belief system in public discourse. It’s not even enough that we have to respect their belief system any longer. We literally cannot voice an opposing opinion and contend that someone is talking rubbish anymore in the name of political correctness.
Examples of this can be found literally every day on BBC programming. It seems to have opted to produce a “junk-food” style of public debate, centered on equality of opinion, rather than focusing on delivering informative facts to people and allowing them to come to the best possible decision based on them. This in itself feeds bad thinking. If people are allowed into an intellectual discourse, before reviewing any real fact-based material, believing that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old as creationists do then the whole concept of being informed and intelligent is thrown out of the window.
I simply ask the question of why? I have absolutely no problem with respecting an individual’s privacy, relationships, personal choices or any of the things that make them who they are, but this is different from actually being made to respect the content of their subjective opinion. I don’t even mind respecting the fact that they hold the opinion. It’s the content that should be allowed to be brought into contention.
For instance, I am a Manchester United fan and it happens to be my opinion that they are a good team. The statistical data over the past 20-25 years also swings to support that hypothesis. However, I am constantly criticised by friends and peers who inform me that they are a terrible team to support and that I am a moron of the highest order. I have no problem with that. There is no problem with that whatsoever. They are criticising the content of my subjective opinion. My opinion about Manchester United is not based on a vast array of supporting evidence. I simply like them. When asked why I like them I can’t really come up with any satisfactory argument. Neither could any other fan of sport. Some might support their local team because they were born in the general area, but they have no real ties with the club anymore than they have real ties with the geographical area. All reasoning behind sport-based opinion making is generated by a sense of pride within the individual fans themselves.
So the name-callers are not trying to lie to me, criticise me as a human being or trying to alter my perception of what is true in any way. In reality, Manchester United re no better than a lot of other teams in the Premier League.
This sort of opinion, about football, is clearly not equal to that of a medical practitioner who tells me that, through the convergence of evidence including my personal testimony, objective blood testing and some cardiovascular monitoring, they have concluded I have a viral infection. Nor is the unfounded opinion that a mashed toad will cure my headache equal to the conclusion that each living human has 23 pairs of chromosomes, one pair from each parent, based on genetic evidence. Understanding this principle is essential to formulating opinions that hold merit and real-world application. The opinions of those rancid individuals who remain in denial of the holocaust do not hold equal value to those who believe it did certainly happen based on the massive amount o f evidence which proves that it did.
Everyone has the right to their own subjective opinion and we must completely respect that. That is the purpose behind the concept of opinions. However, as we have seen, this does not make them equally valuable by default in the realms of intellectual discourse and real-world application. Therefore we do not, or should not, be made to respect the content of those opinions or belief systems in the name of a false sense of balance. No individual on this planet is better than anyone else, but that is not to say that their view point is equally valid.
People can be wrong and that is one of the wonders of progression.
So if you come to me with any of this mumbo jumbo… Take a deep breath and then remove the silly dunder-thoughts from your brain-capsule. Then stick them up your toffee-bott.
Filed under: Philosophical Thought, Reasoning, Scary Shiz-am!, Science, The Mind and Suggestibility by Mark Brewer
No Comments »
ku eloquently states, even the most sophisticated computational systems on Earth possess the actual intelligence of a, “…retarded cockroach.”