Skip to main content

Opinion is Dead



When I was much younger, like an undergrad, I’d go out with friends for maybe a pizza and the discussion would be enjoined.  We’d argue this way and that, about one view or another.  We’d argue on and on until the pizza was long gone and bedtime or study time was upon us. Few feelings were hurt by the other. After all, it was just opinions shot back and forth. 

The critical value of an opinion is in its flux of belief. It can or could be changed.
Today, it’s different. When venturing onto websites of columnists, especially those of contributors, opinions are no longer changeable.  They are fixed, hardened, even cast as metal. Modern students are about the same, most with cast-iron views, not to be changed by anyone, any way, anyhow.

The point here is you can’t call it an opinion unless you can cite something that someone can do or say to change it.  It rare we see this. What is slapped down on the page is not opinion but absolute truth in the mind of the contributor. 

Opinions are dead. Nowadays, the irrefutable and immutable position is taken. If history needs a bit of revision to support, that’s ok.  If vague words such as “civilized” are needed, that’s OK. If the occasional white lie is needed, that’s ok.  But never, ever, change the position. In legal terms, it’s become a swearing match.

Even actual science has been infected with this incurable malady, say with cosmology, now almost a pure theory with hardy a chance of resolution by testing. In politics, particularly in the USA, studies have shown there is hardly anyone on the left or the right that associates with someone of the opposite persuasion. 

Self-validation is in. Inclusiveness is out.

-------------------
previously published by the author on writerbeat.com 
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/23107-Opinion-Is-Dead

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view