Opinions, Hypothesis & Questions
I recently heard some opinions expressed with absolute confidence and certainty and they set my synapses crackling which then launched a string of thoughts, unwinding in a sort of uncontrolled and undirected domino effect. Not so much about the specific opinions themselves but about opinions in general.
First I thought that you really can’t have an opinion without knowledge, an opinion should be the end result of a learning process, and that unsupported opinions are so much hot air. The less you know the more questions you should have, resolve the questions and then you can formulate an opinion, right?
However this led to a side observation, that I better pose as a question (having no real evidence to support it as an opinion), on the relationship between the strength of an opinion and the knowledge underpinning it: is the relationship inverse? the stronger the opinion the thinner the knowledge base supporting it? Of course I find this particularly valid when I happen to disagree with the opinion. But then to disagree with an opinion, even an unsupported one, I would also need have a significant knowledge base, wouldn’t I?
If we could only harness the energy in all the hot air generated from arguments unsupported by knowledge... and it would be renewable since the world seems to have a huge and always multiplying supply of fools. Maybe there is some geothermal energy technology that we can build into the many houses of congress, senate and parliament around the world and connect them to the electrical grid... but I digress.
I then tripped over a reflection on the often quoted concept that the more you learn the more you realize how little you really know, and this seems to imply that the more knowledge you acquire the more questions you should be asking. Again apparently leaving no room for opinions, only for hypothesis.
So without going into a debate on the nature of knowledge (and faith, a particularly touchy subject) which has and will continue filling books, I dare hypothesize that opinions are particularly valueless. We should be asking questions, hypothesizing, acquiring knowledge, proving or debunking our hypothesis (i.e. asking and answering questions), adjusting our hypothesis based on the outcomes, and debating them again, in a continuous and ongoing knowledge seeking process.
Holding an absolute opinion would appear to require possessing absolute knowledge and this would land in the realm of gods, and I would hypothesize that that is not our element.
So if you find yourself passionately defending or debunking an opinion, stop, take a breath (or two) and start formulating questions, honestly and without bias. Focus on seeking knowledge not validation, and eschew opinions because we probably are not gods and we definitely don’t want to be fools.
I suppose everyone's entitled to their opinion, however ill-informed. The challenge in the Internet age is that everyone is free express their opinions but they are not curated in any qualitative way. A celebrity's take on medical issues (e.g. Jenny McCarthy misinformed campaign against vaccines as a cause of autism) are taken as seriously, even more so by some, than scientific evidence. As the 16th century essayist Michel de Montaigne said, "Nothing is so firmly believed as what is least known." The trouble with the world, as Bertrand Russell put it, is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. So yes, let's be strong enough to challenge our opinions, or assumptions if you will. At the risk of over-quoting I'll end with one more opinion from another writer more informed than I, W. Somerset Maugham: "Like all weak men he laid an exaggerated stress on not changing one's mind."
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment and the great quotes Lyle! I guess there is some comfort in certainty and, in an age of information oversaturation, it is easier to latch on to opinions that approximate or reinforce our own than to question and research alternatives. Still, at least for the important stuff, we should probably cultivate some healthy skepticism, don't you think?
DeleteWell written Peter. My challenge to you...
ReplyDeleteWhat is your challenge to us? What is the action? The next step? You leave us without action - you provide thought and reflection in your words...is this the intended action?
The sample universe involved in an opinion can and should share their varying opinions on the best outcome. Then, what is the catalyst that drives action? Time? money? process? other?
Simple put. What is the reason to have an opinion in the first place?
From the sample universe who makes the decision to act? That surely is another post for another time I may have the privilege to review
Opinions should cease to exist as by definition they have and add no value - "A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge" (Wikipedia)...now you could ask...how resolute is a definition?
A perspective however is based on experience...now it's the interpretation, internalization and the subsequent manifestation of articulated thought that may differ. Now THAT is when it really get's interesting :)
...perhaps all my written words are simply loosely connected hypothetical thoughts of a fool
Mike...
...a man with a perspective, never an opinion.