Do you have to have a reason?

Lady Chuckles

I just came across this post where someone was asking another poster "what's your source for this opinion?" and it got me thinking...

Would one always have to have a source (or a reason) for an opinion? If you want to start a debate on a certain topic I guess you'd have to be able to express why you think in a specific way... but apart from that, do we really have to have reasons? Sometimes, can we even find a reason? ... And if we can't find a reason, does that mean we have the wrong opinion? :rolleyes:

Joe1919

There is the boo/hurrah theory or emotivism as outlined in the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism

There is also the idea of intuitionism or possibily the idea that we internalise our choices and knowledge and that culture (and what others think),instinct, habit, training and pre-conceptions form our opinion. We subconsciousely use these in an intuitive way with perhaps also a little thinking.

Black Swan

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

Would one always have to have a source (or a reason) for an opinion? If you want to start a debate on a certain topic I guess you'd have to be able to express why you think in a specific way...

Citing sources allows you to move from your individual subjective perspective of the world to one of shared intersubjective experiences in an attempt to reach an understanding of an objective reality. Edmund Husserl in Ideas assumes that our individual experiences of the world to some extent coincide with the experiences shared by others. Citing the experiences of others, and comparing and contrasting them with our own, may advance our learning of the objective world about us, especially if those cited have been subject to the rigors of such things as the scientific method or peer review.

Admittedly there are no guarantees that such cited intersubjectivity will ensure that we discover the real world about us (e.g., there have been past spurious paradigms), consequently the scientific method only "suggests" and does not prove objective reality. But citing suggestions from philosophy, theory, or science may be useful towards advancing our discussions on this forum, especially when comparing and contrasting your opinion with the cited opinions of others.

Red Hand

Black Swan wrote: »

Citing sources allows you to move from your individual subjective perspective of the world to one of shared intersubjective experiences in an attempt to reach an understanding of an objective reality. Edmund Husserl in Ideas assumes that our individual experiences of the world to some extent coincide with the experiences shared by others. Citing the experiences of others, and comparing and contrasting them with our own, may advance our learning of the objective world about us, especially if those cited have been subject to the rigors of such things as the scientific method or peer review.

Admittedly there are no guarantees that such cited intersubjectivity will ensure that we discover the real world about us (e.g., there have been past spurious paradigms), consequently the scientific method only "suggests" and does not prove objective reality. But citing suggestions from philosophy, theory, or science may be useful towards advancing our discussions on this forum, especially when comparing and contrasting your opinion with the cited opinions of others.

Citied opinions of people whose own citied opinions of others are citied opinions of others...et cetera. Where does it stop? How can you advance something like opinion (even multiple citied/varied sources of opinion) as an equivalent of a falsifiable statement like "the sun will rise tomorrow".

Opinion doesn't always reflect fact. There are many opinions and viewpoints that are plain wrong and inaccurate. No matter how may people experience or citie it. What is your experience of gravity? Is that really an experience that is readily translatable to a scientific, falsifiable viewpoint? Because many people, even in the 21st centuary, are convinced by their flat earth view of the world.

We stand on the top of the earth. If we stood on the bottom, we would fall off. This is the opinion of many people. Or Noah's Ark, or Tower of Babel or God/Allah....whatever you wish. Opinions are not the same as falsifiable fact.

GAAman

I studied psychology in uni and one thing that was basically drilled into our heads was that we could not, under any circumstance have an opinion unless we could cite it. So I basically made the course director admit in class one day that unless someone of note not only shared our opinion, but also published it before we actually formed that opinion, that we might as well wipe our backsides with it!

She still remembers me for it!

later12

GAAman wrote: »

I studied psychology in uni and one thing that was basically drilled into our heads was that we could not, under any circumstance have an opinion unless we could cite it.

You're quite right of course; but I can almost forgive your director for establishing such a rule.

Imagine being handed 100 undergraduate 'original opinions' in something like "emotion & memory"
/shudder

Lady Chuckles

later10 wrote: »

You're quite right of course; but I can almost forgive your director for establishing such a rule.

Imagine being handed 100 undergraduate 'original opinions' in something like "emotion & memory"
/shudder

Although opinions create debate, which could create new theories, which could lead to new research and new facts :rolleyes:

I get your point, though