ForumGarden

Explanation of the logical fallacy from Skeptics



Tom: I believe X works.

Jerry: There’s no evidence to support the fact the X works.

Tom: Well I believe that X works.

Jerry: X has been tested in scientific trials and was not found to work.

Tom: I’m entitled to my opinion.



Anyone who is not impressed by Tom’s argument has a good right not to be; it is entirely vacuous. Nevertheless, this argument is put forward frequently in debates as if it has some merit.

Entitlement.

What do people mean when they claim to have an entitlement to an opinion? Well, the term 'entitled' is equivocal so we need to look at what is meant by the different meanings.

1. Legal.

In the UK we have a right to free speech and free thought. This means that we can hold any opinion that we choose; however, this legal entitlement does not distinguish between valid opinion and invalid opinion. It simply means that we are entitled to an opinion no matter how right or wrong it may be.

2. Epistemic - (Of, relating to, or involving knowledge).

In an epistemic sense, entitlement is an earned right. It's where a person has a right to an opinion because it is based on evidence or knowledge for example. In other words, there are good reasons for holding such an opinion. Opinions need to be justified and this distinguishes between valid and invalid opinion.

As can be seen, the two meanings of 'entitled' are quite different to each other. In fact, they are the opposite of each other. (1) states that we have the right to believe anything, with no regard as to whether it's true; (2) states that we are only entitled to opinions that we can justify, which means having good reasons for holding them.

Its use as an argumentative tactic.

If we look at Tom's argument, he's using it in sense (1) - he does have a right to an opinion in this sense; however, he's implying that his right to an opinion somehow justifies his claim - as in sense (2).

Claiming a right to an opinion in sense (1) adds absolutely nothing to the argument. It is a complete irrelevance that does nothing to resolve the disagreement. Tom may as well have pointed out that he disagrees with Jerry because Ostriches can't fly! Changing the subject of the argument to whether one is entitled to an opinion merely introduces an irrelevance: the 'red herring' fallacy.

If Tom was claiming that he's entitled to an opinion because he has good reasons for holding it, as in sense (2), then his claim carries more weight. Of course Jerry may also feel justified in claiming an entitlement to his opinion too. If their views differ, then one (possibly both) of them is wrong. If two people claim to be entitled to their opinion (2), how can the argument be resolved? By examining both of their arguments and finding out which has the best case to support their opinion. In other words, by resolving the original argument!

Conclusion.

"I'm entitled to an opinion" is often used in debates as a defence of a belief or stance on a subject. Whether it's used to end a debate (1) or to add weight to a person's position (2) it is equally useless as a debating tactic. Debates can only be resolved by presenting sound arguments with supporting evidence. Stating one's rights and entitlements adds nothing to the debating process. Having a right to an opinion does not make that opinion right.

In retail business there is a saying: "The customer is always right". This is a philosophy that is reflected in customer service.

The customer may not always be "right" but she must feel that her

concern is most important to the person she is doing business with.

It is a way of acknowledging the importance of the customer. After the

customer feels that her concern is very important, the business is conducted. Whether the customer is really "right" does not matter...it is how the customer perceives she is being treated.

We’re only entitled to our opinions if we have evidence for those beliefs. Strong arguments must support a belief with the inferences supported by proper warrants. If you are going to have a discussion, you should be willing to change your mind in the presence of irrefutable evidence, or at least be willing to question your own beliefs. You shouldn’t lock up and run when someone doesn’t hold your view. Nor should you ever get personal

Ill get me coat>>>>>>>:-3:D:D

imo, reverting to "I am entitled to my opinion" in a debate setting is an admission of defeat in the argument, though a determination that the person is not personally convinced by the opposition.

It's a rather pleasant way of stepping down and admitting defeat if it is recognised as such. To think that the opinion, just of its own existence, lends credibility is the only error.

Here's an example of that kind of thinking that scares the hell out of me:

I believe the world is flat. And in my opinion (because I'm sure I'm right and no one will ever change my mind of that), anyone that disagrees with me isn't worthy to live on my flat world and should die a horrible death.

Brrr

Too often the phrase "I'm entitled to my opinion" translates as "Regardless of all empirical evidence, and in defiance of all logic and common sense, I insist upon embracing my rickety paradigm".

Sounds like one or two leaders of nations I know. :rolleyes:

I have no idea why this guy decided to not wear a shirt, but his mind is really sexy

oh... and he's talking about this very subject.

Here's why the OP is wrong(in my opinion...and I am entitled to it:D)

What may be accepted as hard factual information today, may not be tomorrow. In my lifetime alone, I've been told to quit eating bacon, well done hamburgers, undercooked hamburgers, meat entirely, certain vegetables, specific vegetables and then told to 'never-mind'. All based on scientific and medical studies that someone used to prop up their argument.

The argument is made that smoking is not bad for you -based on studies. That these studies were bought and paid for gets lost after a time and folks simply quote a study.

The fact that I don't continue to debate with you on any subject, may simply mean that I have reached the conclusion that I will not change your take on it and you will not change mine. And so, to continue to debate is pointless, IMO...and I am entitled to that opinion.

If you walk away from that debate feeling that you have won the point simply because I couldn't be bothered to waste the time on it anymore, you may be in error. It could simply be that I have said all that I feel the need to say on the subject up for debate.

Most certainly everyone has a right to maintain an opinion even if it is false. The discussion of the expression as fallacy is related to debating.

In a structured debate there is a foreseeable end to the discussion, each party has a set time or number of posts in which to make their arguments, whereas in open threads the debate can go on for months until one or both decide to discontinue. The point is that, if a person feels their argument has been sufficiently presented to be convincing then it is far better to say that then to imply that their ideas deserve merit just because they chose to maintain it.

To say, it is my opinion that I have presented my argument persuasively, shows a desire to end the discussion without trying to claim "rightness" that can't be disputed, particularly in cases where the facts haven't been addressed.

Facts outweigh unsupported opinions in debate.

koan;737039 wrote: Most certainly everyone has a right to maintain an opinion even if it is false. The discussion of the expression as fallacy is related to debating.

In a structured debate there is a foreseeable end to the discussion, each party has a set time or number of posts in which to make their arguments, whereas in open threads the debate can go on for months until one or both decide to discontinue. The point is that, if a person feels their argument has been sufficiently presented to be convincing then it is far better to say that then to imply that their ideas deserve merit just because they chose to maintain it.

To say, it is my opinion that I have presented my argument persuasively, shows a desire to end the discussion without trying to claim "rightness" that can't be disputed, particularly in cases where the facts haven't been addressed.

Facts outweigh unsupported opinions in debate.
So long as one accepts that facts don't make one side or the other right. Folks tend to only accept as fact, those facts which support their stance on any given issue. And facts can change.... I still can't get over losing a planet! That non-planet was a fact of my life for 48 years!:wah:

Interesting topic. And I always fall over one of these when I have to be somewhere else, half an hour ago. The last discussion I found interesting just vanished suddenly. So people, don't say anything compostable, please - whatever that would be - at least till I get back.

grh;737043 wrote: So long as one accepts that facts don't make one side or the other right. Folks tend to only accept as fact, those facts which support their stance on any given issue. And facts can change.... I still can't get over losing a planet! That non-planet was a fact of my life for 48 years!:wah:


Sorry to go off subject but I have to know this- what non planet do you mean, grh?? What did I miss?

RedGlitter;737054 wrote: Sorry to go off subject but I have to know this- what non planet do you mean, grh?? What did I miss?


She's talking about Pluto. *sniff!* :-1 Relegated forever to the trailer park of the solar system hierarchy.

RedGlitter;737054 wrote: Sorry to go off subject but I have to know this- what non planet do you mean, grh?? What did I miss?


Life.

We've been told for decades and decades that the earth will be destroyed.

Russia, nuclear weapons, war, famine, global warming.

The end is nigh.

My mind wont work like this. I dont have a clinical mind. I have trouble seperating emotion from thought processes. Often my emotion (what I care about) drives and motivates what I choose to speak about.

Even if I were in a sterile debate scenario Id be compelled to draw on my instincts to fuel my words.

Which is why I usually walk away from an argument then come back to talk rationally when Im calm.

If I dont Ill get in trouble.

koan;737002 wrote: Debates can only be resolved by presenting sound arguments with supporting evidence. Stating one's rights and entitlements adds nothing to the debating process. Having a right to an opinion does not make that opinion right.


(knocks on door)

"Is this the right room for an argument?"



"Pull the wool over your own eyes, and relax in the safety of your own delusions."



J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, Church Of The SubGenius

Nomad;737097 wrote: My mind wont work like this. I dont have a clinical mind. I have trouble seperating emotion from thought processes. Often my emotion (what I care about) drives and motivates what I choose to speak about.

Even if I were in a sterile debate scenario Id be compelled to draw on my instincts to fuel my words.


I think you'd be able to control your instincts enough that you wouldn't insult an entire religion. I probably shouldn't mention this here, but what I read earlier today was incredibly offensive and I'm concerned about the fact that others might be drawn to this forum and see hate speech like that.

Richard Bell;737099 wrote: (knocks on door)

"Is this the right room for an argument?"



"Pull the wool over your own eyes, and relax in the safety of your own delusions."



J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, Church Of The SubGenius


no first left up the stairs and second door to your right;)

Snooze;737104 wrote: I think you'd be able to control your instincts enough that you wouldn't insult an entire religion. I probably shouldn't mention this here, but what I read earlier today was incredibly offensive and I'm concerned about the fact that others might be drawn to this forum and see hate speech like that.


Something I said ? Im unclear.

Nomad;737110 wrote: Something I said ? Im unclear.


How about we just keep it that way in this thread. I did not post in the other thread because I don't care to participate in that discussion.

This one I find interesting and would prefer it not be deflected.:-6

But that's just my opinion...

grh;737118 wrote: How about we just keep it that way in this thread. I did not post in the other thread because I don't care to participate in that discussion.



This one I find interesting and would prefer it not be deflected.:-6



But that's just my opinion...


Because she posted in my reply Im led to believe its something I said. Id like clarification.

I also have a sneaking suspicion little seeds are being planted. We'll see.

It's not what you said, Nomad, but (I think) what was said by another member who is writing passionately and based on instinct/personal experience. The comments made have been and are currently being challenged so that anyone reading it will see that the statements were not accepted by the board in general.

There have been and will continue to be many people who fall back onto "the right to an opinion" to block criticism. Where it is used to withdraw from an argument, there is little that can be done to compel a person to continue debating but others should not be prevented from continuing to write their own arguments against the statements.

As relates to allowable content, freedom of speech is important but does have limits.

I really believe that debating harsh statements is more productive than banning or deleting them.

koan;737136 wrote: It's not what you said, Nomad, but (I think) what was said by another member who is writing passionately and based on instinct/personal experience. The comments made have been and are currently being challenged so that anyone reading it will see that the statements were not accepted by the board in general.



There have been and will continue to be many people who fall back onto "the right to an opinion" to block criticism. Where it is used to withdraw from an argument, there is little that can be done to compel a person to continue debating but others should not be prevented from continuing to write their own arguments against the statements.



As relates to allowable content, freedom of speech is important but does have limits.



I really believe that debating harsh statements is more productive than banning or deleting them.


And How !

As far as the legal right to an opinion goes, The Harm Principle, as expressed by John Stuart Mill, is the most liberal statement in defense of free speech:

If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. (1978, 16)

Such liberty should exist with every subject matter, such that we have “absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral or theological (1978, 11). Mill claims that we need the fullest liberty of expression to push our arguments to their logical limit, not to the limit of social embarrassment. Such liberty of expression is necessary, he suggests, for the dignity of persons.

This is as strong an argument for freedom of speech as we are likely to find. But as I already noted above, Mill also suggests that we need some rules of conduct that regulate the actions and words of members of a political community. The limitation he places on free expression is “one very simple principle, now usually referred to as the Harm Principle, which states that

the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. (1978, 9)

source

From that, we still need to agree on what constitutes "harm".

From that, we still need to agree on what constitutes "harm".





That would be like agreeing on the abortion issue.

Nomad;737178 wrote: From that, we still need to agree on what constitutes "harm".





That would be like agreeing on the abortion issue.


There ya go, another thread topic!

From a science standpoint, its long been realized (and we are talking about ancient Greece here) that for people to have some basis for useful discussion, argument, discovery, insight, it is necessary to have some way to be able to have an agreed frame of reference that can be used that all involved can agree on. That frame of reference is the reality of what we can see, experience, and equally importantly agree on a system of measurement for. This may seem to be common sense, but think about it, this is the whole basis of the scientific method. (i.e. you cannot make claims based on opinions you cannot validate with measurable, repeatable evidence that others must be able to access and be able to make the same conclusions from).

Which is why issues and "beliefs" that cannot be dealt with empirically (i.e. something we can all agree exist and see, measure etc) are generally left alone, as you quickly get into these kind of "I'm entitled to my opinion" type arguments, usually involving religion and the metaphysical where God is used as the punctuation mark at the end of the sentence that goes, "I know I am right because I believe it". Not to say that religious belief or any metaphysical philosophy is invalid, simply that its impossible to determine using any known frame of reference whether such opinions are valid. In scientific debate thats the same thing essentially.

But this also goes for normal everyday issues and debates as well, and this again is one of the reasons why religion in particular is such a potentially divisive thing as religions have complete internal realities that are different so that the world that a Catholic believes in, is quite different from the world a Sunni Muslim believes, or a Hindu etc etc.

Galbally;737284 wrote: From a science standpoint, its long been realized (and we are talking about ancient Greece here) that for people to have some basis for useful discussion, argument, discovery, insight, it is necessary to have some way to be able to have an agreed frame of reference that can be used that all involved can agree on. That frame of reference is the reality of what we can see, experience, and equally important agree on measurement values of. This may seem to be common sense, but think about it, this is the whole basis of the scientific method. (i.e. you cannot make claims based on opinions you cannot validate with measurable, repeatable evidence that others must be able to access and be able to make the same conclusions based on.

Which is why issues and "beliefs" that cannot be dealt with empirically (i.e. something we can all agree exist and see, measure etc) are generally left alone, as you quickly get into these kind of "I'm entitled to my opinion" type arguments, usually involving religion and the metaphysical where God is used as the punctuation mark at the end of the sentence that goes, "I know I am right because I believe it". Not to say that religious belief or any metaphysical philosophy is invalid, simply that its impossible to determine using any known frame of reference whether such opinions are valid, and in scientific debate thats the same thing essentially. But this also goes for normal everyday issues and debates as well, and this again is one of the reasons why religion in particular is such a potentially divisive thing as religions have complete internal realities that are different so that the world that a Catholic believes in, is quite different from the world a Sunni Muslim believes, or a Hindu etc etc.


To which I say.....HUH?:D

Syllogistic argument versus debate versus discussion versus chat.

A syllogistic argument can be challenged on two bases only. The first is the validity of the argument process itself: All men are equal. I am a man. Therefore I am equal - type of thing. (Invalid syllogism). The second is on the truth of one of the premises. Which means the truth of a "fact". Epistomology is the branch of philosophy dealing with how we know what we know. As grh has pointed out, facts can change. Knowledge is of two kinds. Stuff we know a priori - which mostly comes down to tautology or definition - two plus two equals four. Or stuff we know through our experience. The sun rises every day. To prove this would require an infinite number of occurrences. To disprove it would require a single instance of it not happening. And everything we "know" we know anyway through the means of our five senses, every one of which can be tricked. Potted philosophy 101. Feeling or emotion does not come into this kind of argument.

Debate, in its strict form, developed from syllogistic argument plus the equally old discipline of rhetoric. These days, you can win a debate through showmanship, without the rigour required in the earlier form.

I don't think Forum Garden gets very far with either of these means of examining reality. Apart from the mechanisms of argument, they require some degree of detachment, and most of us are not detached, when we launch into a pet topic.

Which leaves facts and opinions within discussions and chat.

But then, what is a "fact"? The vanished planet. Flat earth.

I agree with Koan's opening post, and can appreciate that to a person who wants a 'proper discussion', it is frustrating when others have a different reason for visiting the thread. Some are genuinely curious about the views of others, some are searching for enlightenment, some want to state their opinion without anyone challenging it, some want to convert others to their viewpoint, some confuse feeling and belief and thinking, some don't understand logic, some confuse attacking a view held by a person with attacking that person.

What I find most frustrating is that when something that appears to be an interesting subject of discussion is raised, there is always someone else who sees in it a personal insult, a chance to attack someone else or an opportunity to disrupt or trivialise. All of which may have entertainment value, but don't add much to the sum of human knowledge. But heck, is that what we're here for???

-------------------------

ED AussiePam feels she is entitled to express this possibly fallacious opinion.

grh;737301 wrote: To which I say.....HUH?:D


OK, I will put it like this. If we want to argue about god, or whether ghosts are real, or whether Noah really did build an ark, its one subjective opinion against another, right? But if we want to argue about gravity, then I could weigh your car, roll it off the side of a very high, sheer drop, and measure the time it took to hit the ground. It is likely that you would then also push my car (hopefully just the car!) off the drop to teach me a lesson.

Now once everyone had calmed down at least we would have several bits of information that we could agree on. The fact that our cars, the drop, and you and I all exist (or at least seem to, for both of us, from all the available evidence we have), we also have the weight of the cars, the height they were dropped from, and the time taken for each to hit the ground. Once we did the calculations we would find that both cars took the same time to hit the ground, (minus any unlikely wind effects) and that they fell in the way that Newton's law of gravity describe at an acceleration of 9.81 metres per second squared. Which is what makes Newtons laws science and say the question of whether the parable of Noah's ark is based on a true story (or even the absolute and unquestionable word of a "God") not a scientific question. Does that explain what I am getting at?

Nicely explained AP!

btw, I love your ending line... would make a good sig :p

I do approach most topics that have debatable aspects with a keen interest in exploring the logic of both arguments. As Galbally said, there are some debates in which no facts can be established, notably religion. The next best thing is to have experts in a field of study that support the opinion, failing the speaker being an expert themselves.

The frustrating point for me is when the use of the expression "I am entitled to my opinion" is intended to halt discussion. Yes, that person may, for all I care, continue to believe that 1+1=78, but discussion of the actual sum may continue without them. If the person returns to the discussion screaming that 78 is the sum because they declared it to be so but offers no further proof than the opinion... that's where it becomes disruptive to the debate. One person's right to maintain an opinion, fallacious or not, does not preclude the right of other people to continue stating their counter proofs for the other readers.

Galbers, you're a scientist and are using scientific hypothesis (not yet proven false) as the closest we can get to fact in what we know from experience. And without this kind of measurable evidence, in my possibly fallacious opinion, it would be impossible to live one's life. Scientific hypothesis - to be proven required an infinite number of occurrences. To be disproven, one instance only of non occurrence. And till then, it's the best theory we have, to be going along with. So I accept that you are not just a figment of my imagination. Or else, I write bloody good songs, whenever my brain invents you.

I'm with you on the subjective topics - and avoid them, unless I just want to see what someone believes about something. These, as you've said, involve propositions that have not - as yet - been proved or disproved, with any kind of logic or evidence considered scientifically acceptable.

There is however common sense - and no, Koan, I have no idea what I mean by this. Some views are so wacky as to be off the planet, some views are more reasonable. Views that agree with my own personal viewpoint are true, by logical necessity, in all possible universes.

Koan, your take on common sense - as far as I can see - means that you give more weight within a discussion to the views of an expert on the subject in hand, to the less scholarly views of the common or garden random poster. Fair enough.

It is my personal experience that where subjective views are being hotly aired, nothing in this world (or possibly the next) is going to shift the opinion of any participator one iota. And one way or another there's going to be tears before bedtime.

-------------------------

ED AussiePam feels she is entitled to express this possibly fallacious opinion.

I've been thinking about something all day that I've been wanting to express. Particularly to Jester, who has come up (subtly) in this thread.

This thread is not intended to stop people from voicing unpopular opinions. The idea here is to press people to expand and explore their own values and opinions. If someone provides an explanation for their point of view I am grateful that they took the time. If they respect that I try to explain my point of view then that's even better. It would, however, be nice to agree that the right to a point of view does not add to the validity of the opinion. It does not further the debate or bring any further credit to the person's opinion just in that they choose to believe it.

Though it annoys me when I am told to cease arguing my point just because another member doesn't want to talk to me anymore, I also appreciate that we had the chance to debate. I don't specifically write to the member I'm debating with. I'm writing to the entire readership of this forum.

Most recently... Thank you Jester for stating what you knew would be harshly criticised opinions. You are not the only person who holds the same beliefs but, through your willingness to discuss them, we all have a chance to present our arguments to the readers who follow our discussions. You've put a lot of effort into your replies and I appreciate that.

Galbally;737312 wrote: OK, I will put it like this. If we want to argue about god, or whether ghosts are real, or whether Noah really did build an ark, its one subjective opinion against another, right? But if we want to argue about gravity, then I could weigh your car, roll it off the side of a very high, sheer drop, and measure the time it took to hit the ground. It is likely that you would then also push my car (hopefully just the car!) off the drop to teach me a lesson.

Now once everyone had calmed down at least we would have several bits of information that we could agree on. The fact that our cars, the drop, and you and I all exist (or at least seem to, for both of us, from all the available evidence we have), we also have the weight of the cars, the height they were dropped from, and the time taken for each to hit the ground. Once we did the calculations we would find that both cars took the same time to hit the ground, (minus any unlikely wind effects) and that they fell in the way that Newton's law of gravity describe at an acceleration of 9.81 metres per second squared. Which is what makes Newtons laws science and say the question of whether the parable of Noah's ark is based on a true story (or even the absolute and unquestionable word of a "God") not a scientific question. Does that explain what I am getting at?


Oh, I got it the first time. I just wanted to be sure Aussie and Koan were able to follow along...:yh_whistl:yh_whistl:D

Hi Koan,

Here I go again posting something out of my enthusiasm for what has been said here. When you mentioned debates I immediately thought of politicians, not that I don't get what you all say for other interactions, its just with the US elections coming up, and me getting more mature as a byproduct of age (NOT an opinion, I might add) I've become more opinionated about how some of these people are elected.

If an opinion counted in political debate that was not substantiated by some fact (I'm treading on thin ice, for what is a fact anyway?) some politician might say, 'well that's my opinion', disregarding substantiation, and then what would be the outcome?. My god I shudder at this.

Yet there are plenty other people who would agree with that politicians opinion and support a person who in my opinion wasn't fit to be a leader of us all simply because he or she failed to be a realist and agree with the facts, and then, or yet, this person could be elected just because all these same people held the same opinion regardless of facts or history or hypothesis (consequences).

I'm not the type to like politicians too much. They air their opinions too readily for my tastes. They talk a lot about what their opinion is but never do anything.

People should have opinions but not in debates. Not right.

Erin

Opinion is a starting ground, not a finishing point.

Without the ability to express an opinion, society could lose a lot of brilliant discoveries. But it is folly to proceed purely based on opinion with no attempt at deducing the facts.

Political debates are only called debates as a marketing strategy. They really have nothing to do with debating. The politicians show up, having rehearsed their own selling points and then regardless of the questions asked, will answer them in a manner solely intended to get those selling points across.

Have you ever tried to tell a goat not to eat everything in sight?