It seems to be as easy as rolling out of bed in the morning to counter criticism of opinions by attacking the person voicing that criticism. It may be by referring to some position that person may have held at some point which may run contrary to their own criticism -- making them hypocrites -- or the counter may be based on association with others whose motives are ostensibly contaminated by self-interest or some brand of idology.
This kind of name-calling, no matter how satisfying it may feel to the person calling the names, doesn't really help clarify matters. The intellectual falacies in these defenses and attacks have been well known for centuries, and they are no more valid just because they are put to use in support of a particular cause.
In this day, though, unlike those past centuries, a growing mass of people are adequately educated to see through such flimsy dodges and are thus being increasingly impatient and intolerant of their use. If you want to see your cause go down in flames, whatever it may be, just keep using those rusty weapons! Like a bayonet charge in the age of the machine gun, running off at the mouth in the age of the internet is doomed to defeat...
What do you think about theories of climate change? Economics and finance? Health and nutrition? War and peace? Are you interested in achieving progress for humanity? Or just making noise? No one likes noise makers (except perhaps as entertainment!)...
The only intelligent way to proceed.is to abandon those age-old, greasy tactics and instead investigate the truth of every matter of concern to you objectively, independently, dispassionately. Identify the facts and assumptions, both what you think you know and what others may claim. Validate the assumptions, no matter their source. Evaluate their relationship to reality -- are they sound or speculative? Are they built on good observation? Are they consistent with all available data? Do they make sense?
Remember, this investigation cannot be adjusted one way for views you already hold and another way for views advanced by people you don't like. Think about it -- is it more important to stick to what you believe, or to attach yourself to what is true? If you happen to have glommed on to something you found attractive but was actually flawed, is there any honor in sticking to the flaw?
As Baha'u'llah wrote, it is essential that one "so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth."
That is the standard. And it's a personal standard, not a political or philosophical standard. It's about freeing your judgment from prejudice or ignorance, seeing the world as it is rather than how you may have thought it to be. A doctor cannot make a good diagnosis without examining the patient to see exactly what is going on -- can anyone else make a diagnosis about what's right or wrong in the world without examining the situation as it actually is?
But some of the better-educated people I have talke with over the years hold this standard to be impracticable. They say it's contrary to "human nature." This perception supports cynicism, the idea that they're all a bunch of frauds, that some approximation of truth can be found by coming up half-way in between contending factions because none of them are any more or less valid than any other.
Talk about an assumption! This is the standard we try to apply in our legal system, in scientific investigation, in every question of fairness and justice. We try to get to the "ground truth," rather than sticking to ignorant first impressions or prejudices. So, contrary to the idea that public figures and public debate must always be dominated by the half-truth, by spin, by ideology and by interest, people can and should put such childish squabbles where they belong and act like adults.
And perhaps let the people with the big mouths know they're not fooling anyone, that they should be ashamed of themselves for their foolishness, and that if they're serious about anything they should start acting like responsible, mature adults.
Put the facts and assumptions out there for everyone to see. In the end, there can be widely differing views on issues based intelligently and fairly on differing assumptions, and it's up to leaders to choose the ones they find stronger. But more on that in later posts...
Friday, December 25, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Opinions, polls and pols
Anyone can have an opinion about anything, and nearly everyone does. That's a fact, and it's a fact essential to polls. Polls are nothing more than a way of measuring how opinions are distributed among a population. So many head are counted expressing a preference towards one proffered opinion, so many the other way, and assuming that with a sufficient number of heads in a certain category you can predict what all heads of that type would say if asked the same question, the pollster announces the distribution of opinions among those heads.
And that is then presented by the press as a fact bearing somehow on the merits of the subject of the opinion.
However, since opinions are only as good as the judgment of the persons offering them, and that judgment is only as good as that person's familiarity with the underlying facts and assumptions, the opinion of most people on most topics is essentially worthless -- other than as a measure of sentiment, or the effectiveness of public relations campaigns.
If you ask the typical 4,000 random people whether carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by combustion of fossil fuels is a driver of climate change, you will certainly get their opinions. But what do those 4,000 people base their opinions on? Have they studied the CO2 record of the Vostok ice cores? Are they current on the transport of latent heat in storm formations? The absorbtion bands of various gasses in the atmosphere? The operation of Henry's Law on partial pressure of CO2 in sea water?
I think not. Instead, their opinions are largely based on haphazard, almost subconscious responses to tone and context, be it towards the environment or the economy, towards the global community or global government. But not on the facts and assumptions in the science itself.
Politicians, unfortunately, try to ride the horse of public opinion towards their own ends, often in even greater ignorance of the ultimate wisdom or folly locked into their views. Which is worse, higher taxes or higher debt? Which is better, lower taxes or reduced services? What drove the financial crisis of 2008? What is right and what is wrong with the American health care system? Do they have a clue? If so, I see little evidence of it...
More on the role of the media in a future post, but for now, it is an absolute necessity to get away from mere opinions, postures, policies and debate. People need to develop a sense of humility and insecurity in their own opinion, and instead seek out firm ground for reason and understanding of the issues attracting their attention. I should not offer an opinion on a topic which I have not studied in sufficient depth, nor should I seek out opinions from individuals appealing to my sentiments.
Instead, I should see out facts and identify assumptions, and then validate those facts and assumptions against their underlying data and observations. If there is controversy among the experts, I should not simply go with the one that seems more confident, or who has a louder voice or stands in front of a larger crowd. Instead I need to investigate their assertions, and the questions and challenges posed by other people involved in the controversy -- even if their numbers are small and the rich and famous tell me to ignore them, tarring them with insults. And even if I find myself satisfied with a particular understanding of the issue, I should be open to and carefully consider new divergent or contrary views when they arise.
The truth stands on its own against contrary claims, it does not need popular support, its worth is not determined by surveying public opinion. Everyone knows this to be true, and it is to their underlying shame that we often claim the contrary. People may at various times and to various degrees stroke their own egos, stuff their own pockets and honor their own superstitions, but not everyone, not everywhere, not always. The human spirit is made of better stuff than that!
And that is then presented by the press as a fact bearing somehow on the merits of the subject of the opinion.
However, since opinions are only as good as the judgment of the persons offering them, and that judgment is only as good as that person's familiarity with the underlying facts and assumptions, the opinion of most people on most topics is essentially worthless -- other than as a measure of sentiment, or the effectiveness of public relations campaigns.
If you ask the typical 4,000 random people whether carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by combustion of fossil fuels is a driver of climate change, you will certainly get their opinions. But what do those 4,000 people base their opinions on? Have they studied the CO2 record of the Vostok ice cores? Are they current on the transport of latent heat in storm formations? The absorbtion bands of various gasses in the atmosphere? The operation of Henry's Law on partial pressure of CO2 in sea water?
I think not. Instead, their opinions are largely based on haphazard, almost subconscious responses to tone and context, be it towards the environment or the economy, towards the global community or global government. But not on the facts and assumptions in the science itself.
Politicians, unfortunately, try to ride the horse of public opinion towards their own ends, often in even greater ignorance of the ultimate wisdom or folly locked into their views. Which is worse, higher taxes or higher debt? Which is better, lower taxes or reduced services? What drove the financial crisis of 2008? What is right and what is wrong with the American health care system? Do they have a clue? If so, I see little evidence of it...
More on the role of the media in a future post, but for now, it is an absolute necessity to get away from mere opinions, postures, policies and debate. People need to develop a sense of humility and insecurity in their own opinion, and instead seek out firm ground for reason and understanding of the issues attracting their attention. I should not offer an opinion on a topic which I have not studied in sufficient depth, nor should I seek out opinions from individuals appealing to my sentiments.
Instead, I should see out facts and identify assumptions, and then validate those facts and assumptions against their underlying data and observations. If there is controversy among the experts, I should not simply go with the one that seems more confident, or who has a louder voice or stands in front of a larger crowd. Instead I need to investigate their assertions, and the questions and challenges posed by other people involved in the controversy -- even if their numbers are small and the rich and famous tell me to ignore them, tarring them with insults. And even if I find myself satisfied with a particular understanding of the issue, I should be open to and carefully consider new divergent or contrary views when they arise.
The truth stands on its own against contrary claims, it does not need popular support, its worth is not determined by surveying public opinion. Everyone knows this to be true, and it is to their underlying shame that we often claim the contrary. People may at various times and to various degrees stroke their own egos, stuff their own pockets and honor their own superstitions, but not everyone, not everywhere, not always. The human spirit is made of better stuff than that!
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Admin note
Bear with me -- I hope to make it all worthwhile!
Less Respectable Opinions
Not every opinion deserves as much respect as another. If I ask my doctor about my blood pressure, his opinion carries a lot of weight. He's got the education and experience, and I've known him enough years that I have confidence in his judgment. If I ask my Senator about my blood pressure, his opinion doesn't carry much weight. It isn't a matter of his education or station in life, it's just that he's a lawyer and not a doctor. I have no reason to think he knows any more about blood pressure than I do -- and the only reason I'm asking about it is because I don't know enough!
Other people, though, have the appropriate knowledge and experience, but they lack trustworthiness. You can't trust what they say. Your doubts may arise from prior statements they made that turned out to be less than correct, or because they clearly have some motive driving them other than to be honest with you. Or the situation may be so important that you simply can't take anyone on his word alone.
When you express your uncertainty, the response may either overcome or reinforce your doubts. An honest person, confident in his or her understanding of the matter, would ordinarily explain how they think, the facts and assumptions underlying their opinion. An arrogant (or really busy) person may just brush you away. But the person who attacks you for questioning his views, who dances around the question without actually answering it, who refuses or avoids providing those facts and assumptions, that person's opinion deserves no respect at all.
It may be that they are in fact expressing a deeply- and honestly-held view, and that view may itself be solidly-grounded in fact. But because of its source, you can't accept it.
When a person has shown himself to be a pushy advocate of a position, attacking contrary views with slander and irrelevant gossip about people holding those views, refusing to discuss the basis of his opinions or providing false or faulty assertions or analysis, and when you've clearly caught him in the act, then if you continue to listen to him you're only contributing to his delinquency.
Not a good thing!
When you have someone who accepts contrary views and addresses them fairly, carefully and intelligently, who demonstrates patience with critics and addresses their contentions rather than their connections, then you have someone whose opinions deserve respect.
Other people, though, have the appropriate knowledge and experience, but they lack trustworthiness. You can't trust what they say. Your doubts may arise from prior statements they made that turned out to be less than correct, or because they clearly have some motive driving them other than to be honest with you. Or the situation may be so important that you simply can't take anyone on his word alone.
When you express your uncertainty, the response may either overcome or reinforce your doubts. An honest person, confident in his or her understanding of the matter, would ordinarily explain how they think, the facts and assumptions underlying their opinion. An arrogant (or really busy) person may just brush you away. But the person who attacks you for questioning his views, who dances around the question without actually answering it, who refuses or avoids providing those facts and assumptions, that person's opinion deserves no respect at all.
It may be that they are in fact expressing a deeply- and honestly-held view, and that view may itself be solidly-grounded in fact. But because of its source, you can't accept it.
When a person has shown himself to be a pushy advocate of a position, attacking contrary views with slander and irrelevant gossip about people holding those views, refusing to discuss the basis of his opinions or providing false or faulty assertions or analysis, and when you've clearly caught him in the act, then if you continue to listen to him you're only contributing to his delinquency.
Not a good thing!
When you have someone who accepts contrary views and addresses them fairly, carefully and intelligently, who demonstrates patience with critics and addresses their contentions rather than their connections, then you have someone whose opinions deserve respect.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Respectable Opinions
Opinions are easy to get -- an old military adage about opinions noting, in part, that everyone has one -- but many of them aren't particularly valuable or useful.
So how do you separate the occasional grain from the clouds of chaff?
This is most commonly a matter of the authority, status or position of the person whose opinion is at issue. The opinion of a respected radiologist as to the value of mammography should have a pretty high level of credibility, the opinion of an anonymous responder to a blog should not. This is not a matter of class prejudice, it's a matter of knowledge -- of the person's prior assessment of facts and assumptions relating to the specific subject.
Now, if the radiologist offers an opinion about how individuals obtain health insurance to pay for mammogram, that's a different story. Knowledge about the medical issues does not confer special command over the financial, legal or social issues associated with insurance.
In fact, if the radiologist gets going too much on such issues unrelated to the medical basis of his or her expertise, you may well start having questions as to whether opinions on the medical issues are being distorted to conform to these other issues.
And if the radiologist turns out to have integrity issues -- making spurious claims based on weak statistical analysis of doctored data -- then his or her opinion deserves no more credibility than the hack blogger.
If authority is to be accepted as a substitute for a detailed presentation of facts and assumptions, it has to be built on a solid foundation of trustworthiness, which is the most fundamental of all human virtues...
So how do you separate the occasional grain from the clouds of chaff?
This is most commonly a matter of the authority, status or position of the person whose opinion is at issue. The opinion of a respected radiologist as to the value of mammography should have a pretty high level of credibility, the opinion of an anonymous responder to a blog should not. This is not a matter of class prejudice, it's a matter of knowledge -- of the person's prior assessment of facts and assumptions relating to the specific subject.
Now, if the radiologist offers an opinion about how individuals obtain health insurance to pay for mammogram, that's a different story. Knowledge about the medical issues does not confer special command over the financial, legal or social issues associated with insurance.
In fact, if the radiologist gets going too much on such issues unrelated to the medical basis of his or her expertise, you may well start having questions as to whether opinions on the medical issues are being distorted to conform to these other issues.
And if the radiologist turns out to have integrity issues -- making spurious claims based on weak statistical analysis of doctored data -- then his or her opinion deserves no more credibility than the hack blogger.
If authority is to be accepted as a substitute for a detailed presentation of facts and assumptions, it has to be built on a solid foundation of trustworthiness, which is the most fundamental of all human virtues...
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Opinions as facts
In the military decision making process, we build plans on a foundation of facts and assumptions. I went over the additional category of "conjecture," which is like an assumption in that its purpose is to fill in for a missing fact, but is unlike a valid assumption because it has really weak links to established facts.
Let's look at opinions, which are far more often substituted for facts than mere conjecture.
Not that this is always a problem. Opinions can be a lot like assumptions, filling in for missing facts, and dependable to the extent justified by the knowledge of the person giving the opinion about the subject of the opinion. Also like an assumption, an opinion should be examined repeatedly to determine whether it is in fact negated by evolving events. If the basis is sound, if the expert knows his stuff and if he had been given sufficient facts on which to base the opinion, you should be walking on pretty solid ground.
Opinions more often are useful only to the extent that they tell you something about the person stating the opinion, and not about the assertion of the opinion itself. I may tell you oranges are great fruit but apples are not -- does that tell you anything about the fruit? No! But it does tell you something about me.
People are free to have opinions. If President Bush the Elder did not like broccoli, he was entitled not to eat it. If you're a Yankees fan, so be it. We should all be glad that people have a sense of taste.
But opinions based on likes and dislikes need to end with that. To fight with someone because their opinion differs should be, well, distasteful. The ancient Byzantines got into huge riots over sports team affiliations, showing how silly even the members of a great civilization could be at times.
Facts and assumptions. If you want to make an intelligent investigation into what's what and what to do about it, get down to facts and assumptions. If it's a fact, it will stand on its own. If its an assumption, it is as strong as the facts that it's built on. If it needs your opinion to hold up against criticism, maybe you should find something else to work with...
Let's look at opinions, which are far more often substituted for facts than mere conjecture.
Not that this is always a problem. Opinions can be a lot like assumptions, filling in for missing facts, and dependable to the extent justified by the knowledge of the person giving the opinion about the subject of the opinion. Also like an assumption, an opinion should be examined repeatedly to determine whether it is in fact negated by evolving events. If the basis is sound, if the expert knows his stuff and if he had been given sufficient facts on which to base the opinion, you should be walking on pretty solid ground.
Opinions more often are useful only to the extent that they tell you something about the person stating the opinion, and not about the assertion of the opinion itself. I may tell you oranges are great fruit but apples are not -- does that tell you anything about the fruit? No! But it does tell you something about me.
People are free to have opinions. If President Bush the Elder did not like broccoli, he was entitled not to eat it. If you're a Yankees fan, so be it. We should all be glad that people have a sense of taste.
But opinions based on likes and dislikes need to end with that. To fight with someone because their opinion differs should be, well, distasteful. The ancient Byzantines got into huge riots over sports team affiliations, showing how silly even the members of a great civilization could be at times.
Facts and assumptions. If you want to make an intelligent investigation into what's what and what to do about it, get down to facts and assumptions. If it's a fact, it will stand on its own. If its an assumption, it is as strong as the facts that it's built on. If it needs your opinion to hold up against criticism, maybe you should find something else to work with...
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Conjecture and Opinion
I've gone on a bit about facts and assumptions, what they are and how they're used. But consider also what they're not.
An assumption takes the place of a fact you don't actually have. You think it's true, and you're confident that is it probably true -- you just don't know for sure. An assumption is as strong as the actual facts it is assembled from or based on, and you need to understand that basis to decide just how to use the assumption.
For example, during a conventional war soldiers might spot a self-propelled artillery piece on the battlefield. You know that enemy doctrine always groups these into batteries of four, and that they are deployed only with an independent tank regiment, which in turn operates only as part of a specialized division. Because you know enemy doctrine, one fact allows you to deduce all the other facts.
But then come the assumptions: that the artillery piece is operational, that it has a trained crew, that it has ammunition and fuel. How strong are these assumptions? You need more information. And depending on that additional information, you may have greater or lesser concern about the presence of that one gun out on the battlefield.
If the facts are not so certain, if, to use this example, there were no published doctrine on the organization and deployment of self propelled artillery systems, then any statement you might make about the units out there would be guesswork, perhaps reflecting how you would run the enemy's army. But it wouldn't be very strong. And if your soldiers didn't actually get a good look at the gun, or weren't particularly well-versed in how to recognized various artillery pieces, then even the observation itself might be pretty weak.
At some point, if the solid facts lack sustance, then you can't make a valid assumption at all. If you insist on making a claim anyway, it's really nothing more than conjecture -- a guess, a hunch, something that may be more imagination than real, based more on instinct than observation.
Conjecture is not a good thing to build on.
An assumption takes the place of a fact you don't actually have. You think it's true, and you're confident that is it probably true -- you just don't know for sure. An assumption is as strong as the actual facts it is assembled from or based on, and you need to understand that basis to decide just how to use the assumption.
For example, during a conventional war soldiers might spot a self-propelled artillery piece on the battlefield. You know that enemy doctrine always groups these into batteries of four, and that they are deployed only with an independent tank regiment, which in turn operates only as part of a specialized division. Because you know enemy doctrine, one fact allows you to deduce all the other facts.
But then come the assumptions: that the artillery piece is operational, that it has a trained crew, that it has ammunition and fuel. How strong are these assumptions? You need more information. And depending on that additional information, you may have greater or lesser concern about the presence of that one gun out on the battlefield.
If the facts are not so certain, if, to use this example, there were no published doctrine on the organization and deployment of self propelled artillery systems, then any statement you might make about the units out there would be guesswork, perhaps reflecting how you would run the enemy's army. But it wouldn't be very strong. And if your soldiers didn't actually get a good look at the gun, or weren't particularly well-versed in how to recognized various artillery pieces, then even the observation itself might be pretty weak.
At some point, if the solid facts lack sustance, then you can't make a valid assumption at all. If you insist on making a claim anyway, it's really nothing more than conjecture -- a guess, a hunch, something that may be more imagination than real, based more on instinct than observation.
Conjecture is not a good thing to build on.
Facts and assumptions
Serving as a planner with a heavy infantry division going to Iraq in 2005 I learned a lot about many things -- other than just how hot it actually is in the desert in the summer! One of the most useful things was a process called the Military Decision Making Process. It is a way of looking at a situation and deciding exactly what to do and how to get it done. And central to this whole process is the identification of critical facts and assumptions.
Being the military, the terms are defined and structured in a few field manuals and other publications, and used in fairly precise ways there. It's not the exact military process that is so important, though, but rather the idea that you need to be specific, objective and thorough in laying out exactly what the world looks like and what makes it move before you take any action to change it.
Facts and assumptions. Facts are things, relationships, influences, etc., that are firmly known. Facts are important only if the relate somehow to what you're trying to do, but you need to make sure you look at and consider every fact that actually could influence success. A fact that doesn't have that relationship isn't something to worry about.
Assumptions, according to the doctrine, fill in gaps in the facts. They are things you believe to be true, but can't quite nail down with certainty. When you make an assumption, you need to continuously evaluate whether or not the world is behaving as though it were true -- if it doesn't, then you need to consider dumping that assumption and replacing it with one that is more consistent with the facts you have developed.
Why is this important?People argue and fight over all kinds of things, the cop attitudes towards other people because they see things differently, they get fired up because of expectations about what a decision or a situation will develop into.
In a formal way, litigation is just a way to uncover, validate and evaluate facts and assumptions as presented by two sides to a controversy. So we are all quite used to the idea that both truth and wisdom can be uncovered by presentation and evaluation of evidence and testimony, and by intelligent argument between people with views at odds with each other.
I propose that people should use facts and assumptions to work their way through every controversial issue they are interested in, to critique politicians, pundits, news media, and even to make decisions in their own professional, business and personal lives.
The process involves laying out what you think are critical facts, and why you think they are facts. Where does this knowledge come from? Is it solid, or does it depend on other facts and factors? Work your way backwards until you get to the ground truth.
If you can't get down to an absolutely clear, solid, unquestionable fact, then you're dealing with an assumption. Assumptions are only as strong as the facts they are built around. A valid assumption has to be more than a guess, conjecture or an opinion. Like it, don't like it, it doesn't matter if it's not grounded in unquestionable reality.
When you think you have something solid, be open to contrary views. People like to shoot down any view that disagrees with their own, but the honest fact is that truth and wisdom stand on their own, and they stand up against criticism. If your view can't stand up against a contrary view, then why would you want to stand on it? You can't fly by flapping your arms, no matter how much you believe or how loud you yell... If anything, stubborn refusal to acknowledge an error is something to be ashamed of...
Well, enough for now -- look forward to sharing more!
Being the military, the terms are defined and structured in a few field manuals and other publications, and used in fairly precise ways there. It's not the exact military process that is so important, though, but rather the idea that you need to be specific, objective and thorough in laying out exactly what the world looks like and what makes it move before you take any action to change it.
Facts and assumptions. Facts are things, relationships, influences, etc., that are firmly known. Facts are important only if the relate somehow to what you're trying to do, but you need to make sure you look at and consider every fact that actually could influence success. A fact that doesn't have that relationship isn't something to worry about.
Assumptions, according to the doctrine, fill in gaps in the facts. They are things you believe to be true, but can't quite nail down with certainty. When you make an assumption, you need to continuously evaluate whether or not the world is behaving as though it were true -- if it doesn't, then you need to consider dumping that assumption and replacing it with one that is more consistent with the facts you have developed.
Why is this important?People argue and fight over all kinds of things, the cop attitudes towards other people because they see things differently, they get fired up because of expectations about what a decision or a situation will develop into.
In a formal way, litigation is just a way to uncover, validate and evaluate facts and assumptions as presented by two sides to a controversy. So we are all quite used to the idea that both truth and wisdom can be uncovered by presentation and evaluation of evidence and testimony, and by intelligent argument between people with views at odds with each other.
I propose that people should use facts and assumptions to work their way through every controversial issue they are interested in, to critique politicians, pundits, news media, and even to make decisions in their own professional, business and personal lives.
The process involves laying out what you think are critical facts, and why you think they are facts. Where does this knowledge come from? Is it solid, or does it depend on other facts and factors? Work your way backwards until you get to the ground truth.
If you can't get down to an absolutely clear, solid, unquestionable fact, then you're dealing with an assumption. Assumptions are only as strong as the facts they are built around. A valid assumption has to be more than a guess, conjecture or an opinion. Like it, don't like it, it doesn't matter if it's not grounded in unquestionable reality.
When you think you have something solid, be open to contrary views. People like to shoot down any view that disagrees with their own, but the honest fact is that truth and wisdom stand on their own, and they stand up against criticism. If your view can't stand up against a contrary view, then why would you want to stand on it? You can't fly by flapping your arms, no matter how much you believe or how loud you yell... If anything, stubborn refusal to acknowledge an error is something to be ashamed of...
Well, enough for now -- look forward to sharing more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
